I'll add comments here as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two. I know nothing about the topic so please excuse any misunderstandings.

• "Some taiko, such as the kakko, bear similarity to instruments originating from India": surely this should be "bear similarities"? If you really want the singular, it would have to be "bear a similarity", though I think that would sound odd.

  @MikeChristie: Agreed; we might also consider the more simple phrasing, "Some taiko...are similar to instruments originating from India." What do you think? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the "archaeology" spelling is more usual on Wikipedia than "archeology"; both are used in U.S. English and I'd suggest switching unless you have a reason not to, since the latter looks very odd to non-U.S. eyes.

  See Curly Turkey's first comment here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Taiko/archive1#General. I'm used to spelling it the former way as well, even living in the U.S., but I'd rather keep consistent spellings. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly thought "archeology" was the only accepted American spelling. For the record, I'm not American, so take anything I have to say about AmEng with a grain of salt. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not something I would oppose over. I'm British myself but have lived in the U.S. for decades so my eye for these things is hopelessly corrupted. You might ask at WP:Wikiproject Archaeology to see if there's an agreed spelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition to drums, many groups use vocals, strings, and woodwind instruments for accompaniment": there's a touch of redundancy about "accompaniment" after "in addition". How about "Many groups use vocals, strings, and woodwind instruments in addition to the drums", or "Many groups accompany the drums with ..."?

  Good suggestions; I've implemented the second one. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Performers also lean toward and away from the drum by adjusting the degree of bend in their left knee": why "also"?

  Removed this unnecessary qualifier. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Historical accounts from 558 CE": this makes it sounds as if there are multiple accounts from that year, which I suspect is not the case. Should this be something like "Historical accounts, of which the earliest date from 558 CE"?

  Agreed, I've changed the phrasing to your suggestions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a MoS expert, but per this, I think the Japanese terms should be italicized where they occur in the prose.

  Yeah, I do see a few terms in plain text. I'll make a pass to fix these (e.g. Chū-daiko). As a note, the MOS notes that phrases that have common use in English and proper names do not require itals. Taiko and kata are some of these loanwords, and group names such as Ondekoza or Kodo are proper name examples in the article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems a reasonable approach. Since the text is still changing a little I'll review this again once the other points are mostly dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've done another pass here, and I think the Japanese terms have been appropriately italicized. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two of these figures are depicted playing drums. One of them, a player wearing skins, is equipped with a barrel-shaped drum hung from his shoulder and uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height": how about "Two of these figures are depicted playing drums; one of them, wearing skins, is equipped with a barrel-shaped drum hung from his shoulder and uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height"? This avoids the parenthetical "a player", which to my ear confuses the subject of "uses a stick or tube".

  Yeah, that reads much clearer to me and have replaced it. Thanks. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Historians state that her performance is considered to be the creation of taiko music": is "historians" right? Presumably Japanese music historians don't seriously make this claim.

  Not in actuality, but they do state this is the origin of the instrument according to Japanese folklore. I think we can specify this by stating, "...is considered to be the mythological creation of taiko music." I've implemented this change. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an improvement. A suggestion: I'm not a fan of using "state" in sentences like this, since I think there's usually a better phrasing to be found. How about "Historians regard her performance as the mythological creation of taiko music"? Or even "the creation myth of"? That's a little shorter too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I prefer the former of your suggestions and have replaced it there. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Tweaked; "regard" goes better with "as" than "to be". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of warfare repeats the statement about the drums being used to set the marching pace. You could eliminate the duplication by making "setting a marching pace" the third item in the introductory list, which would let you glide into the "six paces per beat" note.

  Good point, I've modified this sentence to transition into the six paces per beat note. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Folklore from the 16th century on the legendary 6th-century Emperor Keitai offers a story during his reign that he obtained a large drum from China": I think "during his reign" could be cut.

  Done. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Konparu (金春流) school of drumming, for example, contains 65 basic patterns in addition to 25 special patterns and are categorized in several classes": as written this means that the school of drumming is categorized in several classes, which I don't think is the intention.

  I've changed this so that the categorization refers to the mentioned patterns, not to the school. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Taiko continue to be used in the classical tradition, gagaku": this makes it sound as though "gagaku" can be translated as "classical tradition", which seems wrong. Would this be better as "Taiko continue to be used in the classical gagaku tradition"?

  The ambiguity you mention about its definition might also be resolved by using an indefinite article: ((tq|Taiko continue to be used in a classical music tradition, gagaku, typically performed..." How does this sound? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, better than my suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kodo is one of the most recognized and taiko groups both in Japan and worldwide": should be "most recognized taiko groups"?

  Hah, thanks. That was leftover from a previous phrasing of this sentence. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shime-daiko are constructed with the head attached via iron rings, which are then tightened with ropes, bolts, or turnbuckles to the drum body": is "tightened to the drum body" normal usage? Or should this be "... turnbuckles attached to the drum body"?

  Done, I've made your suggested correction here.

• "Byō-uchi-daiko cannot be tuned, and their sizes are limited by the diameter of the tree they are made from": presumably the latter statement is no longer true if these taiko are now made from staves as well as single trees.

  Reviewing sources, they do continue to be carved out from whole logs these days, and not just historically. They are also stave constructed; the main difference appears to be in cost, particularly for larger drums. I've rewritten this section to reflect this. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The meaning of the underlining in the table in the categorization section is not apparent; nor is the reason for separating some rows by lines, but not others.

  Among taiko, there are sub-types of some types, but not others. It seemed best to illustrate these using underlining within cells. This is explained sufficiently in the text. I'm not sure there is a good way to explain the underlining within the table itself without going into excessive text. That each row is separated by lines (even when some cells are empty) I think is necessary because, some drum categories have only a few types, whereas others have many. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I follow now. I think the smaller font for the subtypes is a good indicator; I'd suggest indenting those lines a little, and dropping the underlining. I also think a caption to the table might help: perhaps move the title to below the table, and add "Indentation indicates subtypes", or add the explanatory text in a smaller font below the title if you don't want a caption. If it's made clear enough, and if you think the indentation works, you might even remove the internal row lines, and move up the Okedō-daiko rows so there's no blank space. Treat each column like a list with sublists, in other words. The problem with the row lines is they imply the rows have some meaning, which they don't. (This comment also applies to the theatrical usage table.) I have a couple of additional comments now I understand the intention:

  • The paragraph starting "The typical byō-uchi-daiko" lists the chū-daiko as a type of nagadō-daiko, but doesn't mention the ko-daiko, and the hira-daiko is described as "the other type" of byō-uchi-daiko although the ō-daiko has not yet been mentioned; and when it is mentioned it's not specifically described as a type of nagadō-daiko, though I think it's clear it's a byō-uchi-daiko from the surrounding text.

  Fixed both of these issues so that they make sense with the table. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I moved the sentence about the "largest drum in an ensemble" meaning of ō-daiko to follow the definition as a kind of nagadō-daiko, since in the context I think the reader would expect to see the definitions that way round. Please check I didn't screw up the citations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't access the Fujie book any longer, so just to play it safe, I added in another reference there to ensure that information is verified. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nagauta shime-daiko (長唄締め太鼓) constructed such that": missing "are"?

  Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any reason why the types of okedō-daiko are not described in the text? E.g. the only place in the article where "nebuta" appears is in the table.

  Yeah, I've decided to nix these. Other than mentions of them in text, I can find no coverage of these drums, so I don't think they are worth putting on the table at this point; they appear to be too specialized. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A general comment, not really for FAC: it sounds like there's a great deal of detail that is available, perhaps too much for this overall article. Could a future article be written on "Types of taiko", which could give more details on construction and categorization?

  There is a lot, but trying to make it coherent is quite difficult. Frankly, the whole categorization is weird because it's not an official, organized system. Writers mostly agree, but few writers have attempted to place taiko categorically, and a lot of it mentioned incidentally rather than as a part of how taiko are classified. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, no obligation to do an article of course, but something to consider -- I find the data often organizes itself when you do the reading, and it would be a nice supplement to this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • One other note, reviewing my sources revealed that okedo-daiko are largely considered to be shime-daiko, so I've decided to remove the okedo category entirely and place it as an item under the shime category. Furthermore, I've added a "new" category of drums, tsuzumi, which required some additional text in this categorization section. These aren't really new, because I had just neglected to figure out where they belonged, construction-wise. All of that can be seen in this edit and a few subsequent ones. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The categorization table gives five categories, but it seems that the first three columns are defined by construction method, and the last three by usage. For example, the kakko sounds like it might be regarded as an Okedō-daiko if it weren't used in gagaku. Is that the case? Would it be better to split the table in two? The mention in the text of uta-daiko, which are shime-daiko from a construction point of view, but uta-daiko based on use, makes it seem to me that this is really two tables, not one. Also, it seems from the discussion that there are further kinds of taiko not included such as the sumō-daiko and sairei-nagadō.

  I see what you are saying; I figured it was easier to put them all together rather than separate since they are all classification systems, but seeing as there is basically overlap, it may be best to separate these into two tables, side-by-side. I'll get this fixed up soon. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie: OK, I've tried breaking this up into two tables, and have added a column for kabuki on the theatrical table after reviewing sources (most of the drums are the same as in Noh, with one addition). I've also made some other changes to tables' contents-- I don't think it's necessary to include the taiko that are basically different in name only on the construction table. The miya-daiko is a type of nagado-daiko, but their use is so specific and due weight-wise, they only merit a mention in the text, and not so much in the table. Same goes for the sairei-nagado and sumo-daiko. I had these in there earlier for the sake of comprehensiveness, but I think based on your read, it's more confusing than it should be, so I think these examples should be left out. Lastly, there is some overlap between the two tables. O-daiko appear on both of them, but it is the same instrument. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the division into two tables is a big improvement. A couple more comments:

  • Uta daiko are mentioned in the text as being used in Noh performance; shouldn't that be in the table?

  • This term and nagauta shime-daiko refer to the same drum; for simplicity, I've just referred to them this way in the article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not every drum in the construction table is used in theatrical performance, but every drum used in theatrical performance is presumably constructed according to one of the three given methods. Any reason not to specify which form of drum each of the taiko is in the second table? In the text, of course; not in the table. You do this for some of the types, such as the miya-daiko, but not for all of them.

  • I think this has been addressed with the new table format; all of the drums in the theatrical table now appear in the construction table. I have specified what kind of construction the miya-daiko, sairei-nagado, and sumo-daiko are in text under the Categorization section. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it dadaiko or da-daiko?

  • It's both, but the term is not represented consistently between sources on the instrument or general music history in Japan. I've gone with dadaiko for consistency's sake. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with the construction table, I think every drum that has an entry should be mentioned in the text; at least a couple (e.g. furi-tsuzumi) are not.

  • I've removed the furi-tsuzumi because there's not enough information for me to confirm it has general usage in gagaku performance. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ō-daiko means "large drum", but within any group, it describes the largest drum in an ensemble": I think "which refers to" might be better than "and describes".

  Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The largest drums of many taiko ensembles are the ō-daiko": based on the subsequent comment, this is always true, isn't it? Or does the term really have two meanings -- one as a specific type of drum of a certain size, and the other as a reference to the largest drum in an ensemble regardless of size?

  That first sentence is repetitive as you've said, so I've just removed it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the reasoning behind the choice of when to give the Japanese terms in what I assume is kanji? It's done for some words and not for others.

  See comments above and on the previous FAC from Curly Turkey on this-- there is a lot of Japanese on the page, and we have both been trying to reduce that where it makes sense to. Kanji are never provided for words that have articles on en.wiki or ja.wiki. They are only provided the first time a term appears in text, but not thereafter. If they are in the glossary at the bottom, they are also omitted. I've filled in one term, shin-daiko. There are still a few terms for which kanji are not available in RS (such as Kumaoji-daiko), and my Japanese is not good enough to reasonably know these terms. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "any drum that has a longer head and a shorter body": longer than what? and shorter than what? Than a chū-daiko? I think of heads as having width, not length; I take it "longer head" does refer to diameter?

  Yeah, this needs clarification. The heads of these drums are longer than its own body. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You now have "such that the drum head is longer than its body": how about "such that the drum head is broader than the body length", or "the drum head diameter is greater than the body length"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really a FAC comment, but looking at the example of the shime-daiko in the gallery, I don't see any iron rings, which I thought was a defining characteristic of these taiko based on the description in the article.

  I'll have a look around, but there are not that many good images of taiko (lots of performances, but not good images of the instruments). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tsuri-daiko are suspended on a stand, and can either be played sitting down or standing up the drum is suspended on a stand": repetition of "suspended on a stand".

  Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "while these are more functional on smaller drums for carrying": suggest "these are used for carrying the smaller drums, and serve..."

  Good suggestion. Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The skin or head of taiko are generally made from cowhide": is head plural here? Shouldn't this be "skins or heads", or else "is generally made"?

  Good catch. I've fixed so the grammar agrees.  :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "such as for the hayashi-daiko": as far as I can see this term is not used or explained elsewhere, and doesn't appear in the categories section.

  I've removed it; it's not particularly material to the section anyway which should focus more on the process and less on types of drums. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why and how has widespread Internet use changed the manufacture of taiko?

  This was leftover from an unreliable source, and I cannot support this claim. I've changed this to be a more general lead into the rest of the text about companies and so forth. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The term is used in martial arts in a similar way, such as the idea that the hara is the center of being": this doesn't quite work. Do you mean something like "The term is used in martial arts in a similar way: for example, both traditions include the idea that the hara is the center of being"?

  Agreed, this is a better phrasing; I've changed it accordingly. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Of the woodwinds used, bamboo flutes called shakuhachi and the shinobue sometimes accompany kumi-daiko groups": I think this needs rephrasing. As it stands it means "Among the woodwinds used, these two woodwinds are used". I think what's intended is something like "Among the woodwinds typically used in Japan, these two are used".

  Rereading this, I'm not sure that it's important to specify that the woodwinds are typical to Japan (they can read the articles to learn that). I've rephrased this to "Kumi-daiko performances can also feature woodwinds such as the shakuhachi and the shinobue". I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Furthermore, ethnomusicologist William P. Malm stated that": I think that naming the expert inline in this way is mostly useful when it's a matter of opinion. Here I think you could relegate Malm to the footnote; there's nothing controversial about this statement, is there?

  I specify the author here because it's a very specific claim made about Japanese practitioners from an observational standpoint. It's not controversial per se, but I'd rather attribute it to Malm rather than make it seem like many authors have said as much. I rephrased this to make it a little more clear. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I think your rephrasing is a big improvement and deals with my concern. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "These patterns are sometimes difficult to represent in Western musical notation, such as with the piece, Yatai-bayashi": what does "such as with the piece, Yatai-bayashi" mean? Does it mean that this is an example of a piece which contains patterns difficult to represent? I would have thought almost none of the taiko patterns would be easy to represent, given what is said in the article. If that's the intention, how about "Some taiko pieces, such as Yatai-bayashi, include patterns that are difficult to represent in Western musical notation"?

  Sure, that works well. I've made this change. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "taiko performance was substantially different across Japan": perhaps "varied substantially"?

  Done. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The creators of the text maintain": I think this should be "maintained", unless this is cited to a more recent statement than the 2001 text.

  Done. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eisa are a large variety of folk dances": I think this needs to be rephrased. Perhaps "A variety of folk dances originating on Okinawa, known collectively as eisa, often make use of the taiko."

  Yeah, that sounds much better. I've replaced it with your suggestion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some performers use drums while dancing, and fall into two categories based on the type of drum used": is it really the performers who fall into two categories, or should it be the performances or style of performance?

  Ah, yeah, that's not quite right. I've adjusted this to make it clear that the categories deal with the style and less about the performers. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think File:Hachijo taiko 2007-03-21.jpg should be cropped so that the women and drum can be more clearly seen in the thumbnail; I assume it's framed as it is because of the mountain in the background, but for this article's purposes I don't think that's the best choice.

  Agreed, I've created a derivative image from the free image that better frames the performers. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Hachijō-daiko tradition originated as early as 1849 based on a journal kept by an exile named Kakuso Kizan. ": you've just indicated that there are two traditions, so I think this should be "The older Hachijō-daiko tradition ...". I also think a bit of rephrasing would help avoid the reading that the tradition is based on the journal, which is how I first understood the sentence. Perhaps "according to a journal"?

  Hm, but doesn't it seem a little redundant to say that the first tradition is the older one. And the tradition is indeed based on what was found in the journal. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, then I misunderstood -- I thought the sentence starting "The Hachijō-daiko tradition originated" was about one of the two styles within the tradition, but it's actually about the overall tradition. Looking back through it I think I was confused because you use the word "tradition" for both the overall tradition and for the individual styles within it. If you want to keep that word I think it needs a bit of care to make it clear what we're talking about each time it's used. Re the journal: are you saying that the journal documented existing practices which presumably predated the journal itself, and that the tradition is considered to date from the journal, not from the pre-existing practices? Maybe because documenting it allowed it to spread? It would seem more natural to say that the journal simply spread the tradition; the journal didn't originate it. Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I understand the confusion given my choice of words here. I've done some rephrasing in that the "tradition" refers to both of the individual "styles" I describe in that section. I've also addressed the concern with "originated" and instead have written that the tradition was first "documented" in the journal. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "one estimate asserts that the tradition female performers outnumbered males at a ratio of three to one": should be "the tradition's"? And "by three to one" would be more concise.

  I think "the tradition" is an artifact leftover I forgot to remove, and I think it reads OK without it. I've rephrased the other bit by replacing it with your suggested "by three to one" I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "One tradition of Hachijō-daiko is thought to extend directly from the style reported by Kizan" should that be "descend" rather than "extend"? And "one tradition" seems odd: earlier the article says there are two traditions, and we've read about one of them; shouldn't this be "the other tradition" or "the newer tradition"?

  Changed to descend. The second and third sections here both refer to the same tradition, the fourth section refers to the newer one. Maybe these should be combined? I've rephrased the "one tradition" to "The first tradition..." I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of Kumaoji-daiko says that one player provides the lower beat, and the other player is called the upper beat -- looks like a misphrasing.

  Fixed this one, thanks. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The video of San Jose Taiko says that it shows a Hachijō-daiko style, but from the text I would have thought this could be more specifically described as Kumaoji-daiko or shin-daiko, since the caption discusses the upper beat and lower beat.

  This goes to your response to the above point; Hachijo-daiko is the overall tradition, and the two styles are Kumaoji-daiko and shin-daiko. There's not enough information about the video for me to know which is being performed (though I would guess it is the latter of the two.)

  Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The other type of rhythm is called honbadaki is unique to shin-daiko": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.

  Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "that has spread in use among groups": a bit wordy.

  Changed to "spread amongst groups." I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Outside of Japan": can we make this "Outside Japan"? I think this usage has its adherents but "Outside Japan" works just as well and won't annoy any grammar purists.

  Sure, I think we can drop that preposition. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Taiko groups situated in Australia": cut "situated".

  Done. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Brazilian groups have mixed in native and African drumming techniques with taiko performance": I don't think you need "in".

  Agreed, and I've decided "combined" is a better term to use here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Discrimination of this class dates back to the Tokugawa period for those occupied in leatherwork and others who worked with animal skin and were effectively legal outcasts": should be "against this class"? I think the whole sentence needs rephrasing, or perhaps just repunctuating: what's the subject of "were", for example?

  I took another stab at this section, came up with: Those involved in the construction of taiko are usually considered part of the burakumin, a marginalized minority class in Japanese society, particularly those working with leather or animal skins. Discrimination of this class dates back to the Tokugawa period in terms of legal discrimination and treatment as social outcasts. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an improvement, but can we avoid having "discrimination" twice in such a short span? Maybe "prejudice" instead? I also tweaked "of" to "against" in the second sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, and I've made the change to prejudice as suggested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "to have a medium to express the experiences as Japanese-Americans": "the experiences" doesn't seem right. Perhaps "their experiences"?

  Yeah-- I thought I had written that there earlier, but I guess not! Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "differently motivated: In Japan": I don't think this is one of the cases where you can follow a colon with an upper case letter, but I'm willing to be convinced if you think this is correct. Same comment for "...perform in one of two styles: Groups on the ...".

  The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Colons MoS says: Sometimes, more in American than British usage, the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence. I'm OK with leaving these uncapitalized even if they have a full sentence, and have changed the instances you've mentioned and one other. No colon has multiple sentences after it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "which has impacted performance among many groups": it would be nice to avoid using "impact" as a verb. How about "which has had a strong impact on"? Or just "had an impact on" if that's all that's meant.

  Agreed, I've made this change. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "artistically and professionally representing taiko performance": I don't know what "representing" means here.

  Yeah, I don't really like this sentence, so I've rephrased it entirely: a group well known for making taiko performance internationally visible and for its artistic contributions to the tradition. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "and had a reputation for its intensity": should be "which had"?

  Fixed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other famous performers and groups beyond early practitioners have also been noted": If by "have been noted" you mean "are well known" then I think this is redundant with "famous". Can we just make this "Other famous ... include ..." and start naming them? And why "beyond early practitioners"?

  The first section there are basically the progenitors stemming from Daihachi Oguchi's time. The second section is essentially the next generation, but I think it's important to draw this distinction that there are newer practitioners who have achieved a certain status as performers. If it's OK, I'll just drop the "famous" from this sentence, which is indeed redundant. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I see what you're getting at. How about "Performers and groups beyond the early practitioners have also been noted"? I don't think you need both "other" and "beyond". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that can probably go. I've removed the "other" as suggested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the glossary table, do you need "category of" everywhere you have it? A couple of instances look like they might be OK to cut.

  Actually, the whole "category of" is not really necessary here, so I've dropped all instances of it from the glossary. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a pass through. A very enjoyable article; I saw Kodo perform many years ago and it was great to learn about the tradition they come from. Quite a lot of comments above, but most are minor, and I expect to be able to support once they're dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of minor points left above; if I get time tomorrow I'll pull out the remaining points and collapse the resolved ones. One additional point noticed on another read-through:

• "After the skin has dried, tacks, called byō, are added to appropriate drums to secure it": something's wrong here -- should be "added to appropriate points on the drum" or something like that?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phrasing is just to specify that tacks are only added to drums that require tacks, and not the other ones, that are tensioned using ropes or mechanical systems. Hence, "are added to appropriate drums". But I do get what you're saying, and I think adding in a definite article can resolve this ambiguity: ...are added to the appropriate drums to secure it. I've made this changed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]