Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:00, 19 June 2007.

Fightin' Texas Aggie Band edit

Self-nomination. I have worked very hard on this article to bring it up to standards and feel it has been done excessively well. Any concerns will be addressed in a timely manner (<24 hrs). All criteria have been met for featured article status:

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
  2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.
  3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images and media meets the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

— BQZip01 — talk 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd make it a little easier to see where the article stands:

Support Comment Oppose* Oppose**
14 1 3 0 
*  Concerns reasonably addressed, no response from poster
** Concerns not addressed or responded to
Support - Well, it's a fine one, it sure is. People can see, that hard work has been done here. Great job! I find the lenght okay (not to long, which is certainly better than some other FA-nominees from the past), and not short either. Just fine. I only think, an article can be a bit more than just stable. Thts the only real error, and it is a really small one, rather ignorant. Still, it is a very fine written article indeed. I loved to read it. I think it deserves my support for getting to FA-class. Cheers, BQZip01, you've done a fine job. No, let'swait and hope it'll succeed! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article reads very well and after reading it I felt I knew the history and important traits of the Aggie Band very thoroughly. It has the added bonus that it was enjoyable to read while still maintaining encyclopedic style, NPOV, and featured article requirements. Good job! --Claygate 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Addressed my several pages of concerns quickly and promptly as shown on the talk page. (oops forgot to sign in)Oldag07 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very succinct and interesting article. EXCELLENT job BQZip! BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks fine to me. Goes into an appropriate level of detail with good illustrations. Nice work. -Texink[talk] 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Overall looks good, the only item that I could find - really, really picky, too, is that two of the images are left floated, but since the subjects of both are facing left, out of the article, they really should be right floated. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. They've been fixed (I actually found 3: original 1894 band with all member facing right, bugle rank facing left, individual cadet marching facing left). If I missed any, let me know. — BQZip01 — talk 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice article. --Wordbuilder 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well done article. The history seems lacking from the late '40s to present though. Maybe there's nothing that notable to mention during that period. Also, I don't see the point of the Commons Military band link. -Fnlayson 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Commons Military Band link (doesn't really do much for the article). As for the gap in history, that was a typo that deleted 6 paragraphs of visible text; it was in the source code for the page, but not visible otherwise: MY BAD!!! It has been fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dude - this is an EXCELLENT piece of work! I concur that it should be eligible for a featured article! Makes me envious, as a prototype for what to look for in a band history! Mark Sublette 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (Alumni Band, Clemson University)[reply]
Minor oppose There are some direct quotes that need referencing. They should be referenced directly after the closequotes. Also, it should be noted that the "fact" that a computer program cannot simmulate the routines is currently only sourced to an internal Aggie Band source, and unless independant sources can verify this, I find the claim spurious. If a better reference can be found, please provide it. Otherwise, the "fact" isn't really reliably verified. Make these fixes, and I will support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, I respect your opinion immensely, so thanks for bringing these objections to our attention.
  • I understand WP:CITE, BUT, this makes for odd citations and I feel that it detracts from the article. but I have made the requested corrections in the article.
For clarification, why should the quote be considered from anywhere else (or uncited completely) if the citation is at the end of the paragraph?
  • For example, why would you type
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.[2] John stated, "the best is yet to come,"[2] but blah blah blah.[2] Blah blah blah.[2]
instead of
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. John stated, "the best is yet to come," but blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.[2]
It seems that the second version is much less cluttered, but clearly shows where the source of the quote and other text comes from. Another odd example from the second paragraph of the history section is, "As 'a crusty old army man,' Col. Dunn understood the nation's urgent need for troops, but he accepted the fact that the Aggie Band could only return after the war was over.[1]" where you think it should be "As 'a crusty old army man,'[1] Col. Dunn understood the nation's urgent need for troops, but he accepted the fact that the Aggie Band could only return after the war was over.[1]"? Why should you quote the same source twice in the same sentence? What about all previous text? should I reference that too?
  • For clarification, this video may be on the Aggie Band page, but it was created and published by the Former Students Association in conjunction with the Aggie Athletics Department. Please view the video clip and you can see the appropriate corroboration. — BQZip01 — talk 09:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Doing the impossible..." - is this a quote from somebody? Why is this a section header? --- RockMFR 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the quote is from the referenced video clip. I thought the section header was appropriate and used a direct quote. Please see response to previous poster and watch the video clip. How can we reference the source of the quote and still use as a subheading title; Is what I did ok? — BQZip01 — talk 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit POV to use that as a header. Obviously what they do is not impossible. It's like using "I'm loving it" as a header in a McDonald's article. I listened to the video - they don't even say "Doing the impossible". Just remove the header. It's not needed. Futhermore, the video was created by the band, right? (since they show it during A&M games, I'm assuming so) I wouldn't consider this a good source for how "impossible" their drill is. --- RockMFR 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine you think it is POV and it'll be removed shortly, but no, it was NOT created by the band. It was created by the former students association (in conjunction with the Texas A&M Athletic department) for broadcast at the Texas A&M football games, though not at halftime while the band is performing. This information was put above as well. Sorry I didn't make it more prominent. — BQZip01 — talk 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment. I'm impressed with the amount of work that's been done on the article already, but I think it still needs a bit of polishing. Here are my suggestions --
  • I think the first few sentences of the early years section have a different feel from the rest of the prose in the early years section, and it needs a better introductory sentence. How about something along the lines of..."The Aggie Band owes its existence to Joseph Holick. In 1894?, Holick and his brother Louis boarded an empty boxcar bound for Orange, Texas so that they could gain employment in a lumber mill. En route, the two stopped in Bryan, Texas, near the campus of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. The 22-year-old Holick began to doubt his choice, stating, "I was a small boy and couldn't do lumbering work," and chose to remain in Bryan working under Raymond Blatherwick,....
  • The Dunn years
    • Was Col. Dunn a member of Sousa's Marine Band at the time he worked with the band. If not, I'd reword to "A former member of John Philip Sousa's Marine Band with 26 years of military band leadership experience"
    • I would add an introduction to the paragraph beginning "In 1925" to emphasize that the band was also responsible for creating several Aggie traditions that are still recognized today -- the alma mater (and use its name, please), and Elephant Walk.
    • Do the two units of the band ever perform separately? If not, please note that.
  • Need to add a metric equivalent to 5 yards.
  • mismatched point-of-view, which needs to be fixed in this sentence -- "He felt his obligation was,"....my"
  • Referring to people
    • Do not need to refer to Dunn as "Col. Dunn", but only as Dunn. (same for Haney and Rhea)
Disagree immensely. This is a title, much as President of the University. Maybe not used after the first usage, though. I'll review and fix anything I see. — BQZip01 — talk
Dunn is referred to by his full title the first time you mention him (Lieutenant Colonel Richard J. Dunn). Since his title has thus been established, it is not necessary to refer to him again as Col. Dunn; just Dunn will suffice. I found at least 4 instances where he is then referred to again as Colonel Dunn, and several others where he is referred to as simply Dunn. It looks like Haney has been fixed. As for Dr. Rhea, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles:WP:MOS for biographies states that "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Although this is not a biography, I believe that the same sentiment applies for references to Rhea after his first mention. Karanacs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Corrected accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Adams era first paragraph, after you mention Adams' full name, he should thereafter be referred to as Adams, not Cadet Adams or E.V. Adams.
      • Again, disagree. See above for further objections, but I also think that "cadet" emphasizes his position and time in life versus when he was a Colonel 20 years later. On top of that it provides a transitional phrase between sections. — BQZip01 — talk 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no reason to include his initials when referencing him before. You already refer to Adams as a cadet in the first sentence of that paragraph ("then-cadet"). You could also reword the second sentence if you feel it necessary to emphasize that he was a subordinate -- "At the time, Adams thought his commanding officer/band leader/teacher? was joking,..." Karanacs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I initially added his initials to prevent any ambiguity with the corresponding picture, but I think it's ok and people will get the link without it being spelled out for them (or abbreviated in this case). Corrected as you desired. — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a comma after "In 1975"
  • wikilink to University of Arkansas, please
Added — BQZip01 — talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • most dates are in format 1 Jan 2007, but some are not -- please be consistent
Sorry, I just found one -- October 24, 1981 Karanacs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful on this one. This is the whole reason we wikify dates, so they will format to the user's preference. It did not and should not display like that in the text, but was reversed in the code. Note that the Texas A&M University article is LOADED with these in the code, but they show up fine in the actual article. I went ahead and "fixed" this "problem" for the sake of consistency (Once I found it I figured I might as well change it). — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I fully understand the date/preferences stuff. I'll read up on it. Thanks for fixing anyway :) Karanacs 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "To date" be more specific -- "As of 2007,"
Fixed — BQZip01 — talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword sentence about George H.W. Bush please -- this could be read as Toler having had undue influence on the president ;)
  • Images
    • The image of the Senior boots has a dangling preposition! Maybe reword to "Senior boots, such as those Dunn tried to banish"
    • I like all the images for the article, but I think they could be reorganized differently within the article. For example, I would move the following:
      • "The bugle rank leads the band into Kyle Field." to Typical halftime show
      • "The Band finishes an oblique movement" to Complex maneuvers
      • "ATM formation during halftime" to The Dunn years (where you first talk about Block T)
      • Senior boots picture unde rthe one of you in full uniform.
After you fix these I'll change to support. Karanacs 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All changes made. Support? — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above and it is a well written and constructed article, but if I have to be picky, the lead seems one sentence per paragraph, too short. But a very good enjoyable read. SpecialWindler talk 09:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest something more to add? More history? More about the drills? More what? I'd be happy to add it, you just say the word. — BQZip01 — talk 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the article, the lead seems complete but is still probably short, but it's OK. Another point I want to make is that the wiki link in the first sentence of the "Cadet life" section the link BQs links to a place where there is nothing on BQ's, I don't know what it stands for?? You may want to change it to Bad Quakes (BQs) and then you can remove the wikilink and people know what it stands for. (I could be totally mistaken and it may not be initials for something). SpecialWindler talk 09:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link. it used to work, but I think someone else changed it in the linked article (don't know when...and maybe it was even me), but its been fixed now. It was in the article linked, just a little further down. For those interested on this page, BQ originally stood for Band Qualified and was stamped on the personnel folders of cadets. Those who were not qualified were stamped CT for Cadet in Training. Over time, the two entities came up with nicknames for those initials to mock the other: Band Queer and Corps Turd...which is why I didn't type such a lengthy explanation in the first place. As for your suggestion on the other one, I'm going to leave it as is, for now and will add to it once the FA review is over. — BQZip01 — talk 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Normally I would enter a comment or fixes needed, but against the sea of support above, I need to make sure these issues are fixed, as it appears reviewers aren't checking for 2, MOS issues. The first thing one finds is WP:MSH issues (The in section headings). Please review WP:DASH and WP:MOS regarding the differences between hyphens, endashes and emdashes; the article uses them incorrectly and also inconsistently, using hyphens in one section and emdashes in the next. HTML is the default and identifying it in cite templates only clutters the footnotes (it is good to identify PDFs and DOCs, for example). Some of the links in references go nowhere (apparently they were Google cache versions - try the internet archive). Why are we linking to a commercial source (the band's bookstore)? When mousing over the References, one finds that publishers aren't always correctly identified. We don't link to a commerical bookseller (Amazon.com), and page numbers are typically given on book sources, and must be given for direct quotes. Does the band book have an ISBN? Per WP:CONTEXT, do most people reading this article not know what a trumpet is? And, there are prose issues—sample: A veteran of many Air Force Bands and a Grammy nomination under his belt, Toler was quick to realize the potential and traditions of the Aggie Band and quickly set about publicizing it. Please ping me when all of this work is done and the article is ready for a new review. It would be a shame if this article is promoted in spite of these deficiencies because it received a sea of support in spite of these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The" removed from section headings. Good catch. I missed those when I renamed them. — BQZip01 — talk 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed HTML from websites, but I don't find your assertion that HTML is the "default" anywhere in citation sources. Why is that necessary? — BQZip01 — talk 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the Aggie Band Association store, not the band store, (if you opened it) shows six musical compilations of the Aggie Band, now available in 6 CDs. Each CD case, when clicked shows that all contain most (if not all) of the mentioned songs. It was the only site which specifically showed the names of lots of songs which the Aggie Band plays and has played over time. If this is insufficient for you, I can easily link every single CD, but that would clutter up the citation page pretty good with repetitive information. Again, just want to satisfy the verifiability requirement here. — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed emdash/endash/hyphen issues. If I missed any, please let me know. If you are more specific next time, it will lend to a speedier correction. Thanks. — BQZip01 — talk 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the links in references go nowhere (apparently they were Google cache versions - try the internet archive)." By "some" I assume you mean "one", as there was only one such source? This source was under construction and was not available when I last checked it. I checked it today and found it working again. It has been fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When mousing over the References, one finds that publishers aren't always correctly identified." Can you please be more specific IAW WP:FAC? Which ones? — BQZip01 — talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to commerical bookseller (Amazon.com) removed. — BQZip01 — talk 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...page numbers are typically given on book sources, and must be given for direct quotes."
  • "Per WP:CONTEXT, do most people reading this article not know what a trumpet is?" I'm not saying they do or don't, but the extensive use of trumpets is certainly compelling and its use in conjunction with cornets (a far less commonly used term) might leave readers wondering what the difference is; these links show it. As for the rest of the references to instruments, yes, they may know what they are, but would be an ideal lead into the specific instruments. In WP:CONTEXT, it states "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." I see little reason to add trumpet, cornet, woodwinds, sousaphone, etc. and not go ahead and link the other instruments and further enhance the article and its usefulness. — BQZip01 — talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited prose issue fixed. Please list any others IAW WP:FAC. — BQZip01 — talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It would be a shame if this article is promoted in spite of these deficiencies because it received a sea of support in spite of these issues." Respectfully, this tone seems to discount other editors opinions as to the content of the article. Your dismissal of others' opinions and the tone that appears to be protrayed seems almost hostile. I am assuming good faith in this and I know the FAC is supposed to be tough, but you seem to be citing a lot of preferences as hard and fast rules as to how wikipedia has to operate. I hope my previous FAC submissions are not the proximate cause of this hostility. But, as many other editors can attest, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if/when I am, and in this case, I'd like to be. — BQZip01 — talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:FAC instructions, contributors should identify themselves as such. Top contributors per articlestats are:
  • BQZip01
  • NickBurns2006
  • BlueAg09
  • Wordbuilder
  • Claygate
  • Fnlayson
  • Texink
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here ahead of WB's response (please note this was after his post, but should be addressed before additional time of editors is used), but where exactly does it state that contributors should state as such? The closest thing I can find is "If you have worked on the article you nominate, note it as a 'self-nomination'." I see nothing in the requirements stating your exact claim that all contributors should do so. Second, where exactly can I see this counter? I'd like to see the quantity of edits versus the quantity edited because I think most edits from BlueAg09, Wordbuilder, Claygate, Fnlayson, and Texink are incredibly minor, whereas my edits have been substantial (brought article from ~6K to current size). I think perspective is in order here. — BQZip01 — talk 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my ignorance of the guideline. I did indeed contribute to the article. --Wordbuilder 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip - WP:FAC clearly states "If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this" under "supporting and objecting". SandyGeorgia - I am confused as to what a "significant" editor is. There are now about 220+ edits to the article, and I only made exactly seven of them. That accounts for about 3% of the total edits. After reviewing those seven edits I found most of them were minor changes. The only major thing I've done was add a free-use image I uploaded. I did not write any of the content, as BQZip01 wrote/revised the majority of the article. Either way, I too apologize for not following the procedure completely. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BlueAg09. You managed to both find the source and emphasize my point. I was the only one whom I feel made significant edits in an way. Not saying that others didn't contribute here and there, but I was the one who wrote it, producing approximately 23Kb of new material. YThe rest of the edits combined were less than 1Kb. In addition, NickBurns2006 last edited this article almost 2 years ago when it was a mere 2 sentence stub and he's the most significant behind me...let that sink in a little. I really hope this isn't the case of this particular editor holding a grudge from our last FA article. — BQZip01 — talk 08:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you hope it isn't, then please don't imply that it is, Fox News-style. I write dinosaur articles, and if one of my FACs had that many supports from the other dinosaur editors, I wouldn't expect it to pass off of their votes alone either, even if I had written 98% of the article and they had just put in the odd semicolon here and there. That said, it is a nice article and I support it as a featured article. Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I believe it to be, but honestly hope it isn't. Don't read too much into things I type...Slate-style.[1] (note the reference is the only "criticism" from the Fox News article)
I believe it to be, but honestly hope it isn't. - Actually that is precisely what I read into it, that's why I wrote what I did. The Fox News reference was to their tendency to have headlines at the bottom of the screen like "John Kerry eats babies?" where they add the question mark so they can claim that they didn't outright SAY it was true while still implying that it was. I'm sure other news organizations do similar things but Fox News gets the most attention for it (let's not get into a media bias debate here). Sheep81 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) I do not expect to pass from their reviews alone. You cannot possibly read my mind and determine what I do/don't expect. — BQZip01 — talk 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard "John Kerry eats babies?" ever and if you don't want to discuss media bias, then don't use it as an example. I implied it was true, but was willing to be wrong and was waiting for his response. — BQZip01 — talk 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be hostile, just saying that Sandy is right, five out of the nine supports up there were from article contributors, no matter how big or small their contributions. Again, and not to hold myself up as the shining light of all that is good and holy, but if five out of the nine supports from my dinosaur FAC were from WP:DINO members, and somebody came along and said so, I would agree with them rather than trying to prove that they weren't major contributors. Not that they don't have a right to support any article they choose, and not that they're intentionally biased or biased at all, but it's a fair observation, I think. Anyway, that's all I'm going to say, good luck with the article, looks like it's going places. Sheep81 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Point taken, but I think the problem resides in the definition of "If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this." Since it is not well-defined, it appears that a person is using it as a weapon to club reviewers over the head when its very nature is ambiguous. Many of these people I have discussed other articles with and I asked them to review the FTAB article. That any of them fixed a comma here and spelling there is irrelevant, IMHO, and has no bearing on this discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"[If] somebody came along and said so, I would agree with them rather than trying to prove that they weren't major contributors. Not that they don't have a right to support any article they choose, and not that they're intentionally biased or biased at all, but it's a fair observation, I think." I never denied they were anything. Five of the twelve did indeed contribute, but I feel their actions are far from "substantial." Should I also point out that I am a former band member? Should I point out those that went to the school? Should I point out anyone with whom I've had contact? Where does it end? Where is this codified in Wikipedia? Near as I can tell, it isn't and to degrade their contributions here because of an added comma and a spelling correction is close to being overtly hostile for no good reason. In Wikipedia, we are supposed to assume good faith. It doesn't seem like this "problem" does. — BQZip01 — talk 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (added by BQZip01 IAW statement above for the sake of clarity)[reply]
Support If the above problems aren't taken care of, I will oppose though. A couple things "The band weathered the disaster and emerged with a greater legacy of excellence." This sentence rubs me the wrong way, maybe a little POV. Next, what affilliation does the Texas A&M University Press have in relation to the band considering it is the most citied reference, and third, do you have an example of their music? That would be nice. --Clyde (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that sentence. It wasn't needed anyway. Thanks! --Wordbuilder 02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, WordBuilder, but I think the sentence should stay. I don't believe it exerts any particular point of view or bias, but sums up the prior paragraph and provides transition to the next. That said, I will leave it removed for now but replace it if there are no further suggestions/objections.
Well "a greater legacy of excellence" is the POV part, not "weathered the disaster". Try to tone it down maybe? "Success" and "achievements" are non-POV things you can verify, "excellence" depends on your point of view (what do Longhorn fans think, for instance? ;) ). Someone who wasn't affiliated with the band or university probably wouldn't have used that phrase. It's a little fawning. Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about nixing "of excellence"? — BQZip01 — talk 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would say that is the main flaw in the sentence As I mentioned I see no problem with saying that they had a lot of achievements or success, since that is verifiable no matter what you think of the band or its music, so you could say something like that... I don't know exactly but I trust you can write something that fits and sounds good without edging towards POV. Sheep81 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done & readded. — BQZip01 — talk 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the University Press, they are one publishing arm of the University. See http://www.tamu.edu/upress/AboutUs.html for more information. I think we can all agree they are a reliable source.
Much of the music is copyrighted, but I will see about adding some of it (how exactly do I do that from a LEGAL copy of their MP3s distirubted ON THEIR WEBSITE?) — BQZip01 — talk 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out: Wikipedia:Music samples, hopefully that helps. Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. — BQZip01 — talk 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add them in the future (this will be a bit involved to add a few pieces), but for now I'll include a link to their website with samples. Adequate? — BQZip01 — talk 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. You have to understand my original worry that the single most citied source (around 40 citations) looks like it is published by a party related to the band. I still have doubts, but it seems "world class" enough to accept.--Clyde (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concern understood, but this book is LOADED with footnotes and is clearly well-researched. You might consider it a good read if you get a chance. — BQZip01 — talk 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Timothy Noah, Fox News admits bias!, Slate, 31 May 2005, accessed 26 September 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fightin%27_Texas_Aggie_Band&oldid=1136097876"