This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 4 December 2007 and demoted on 12 November 2020. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Today's selected article has the same paragraph repeated twice. ie the one concerning the violin being the highest pitched instrument. Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've not looked at this place closely before but happened to browse this featured article just now. It seems to me that the language used is quite technical and requires a good command of English. The lead uses technical terms like bow and pitched without explaining what they are. Since these words have numerous meanings in English, I suppose that they might cause much trouble for the reader. How should they be tagged for attention? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

They do not need explaining because they are linked to an article which explains them. Majorly ^talk 14:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is not the policy of the proper English Wikipedia: "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." If the ideal language of the proper English version is more comprehensible than the "Simple" version, then the latter is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The word bow is linked, but I think it does need an a brief description in the text without having to go to another page. The word pitched is used with no explanation, and one is needed. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think when we say simple english, that should include the ideas we're communicating as well as the kind of language we use. The article is sporadic and jumps around without clear direction, discussing fairly technical aspects of its construction or use. I am not familiar with the goals of simple english articles, but I think the priority of the simple english articles should be accessibility, and completeness should be secondary and can even detract from the accessibility of the article.