This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This page is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Originally, it was my understanding that the reviewer didn't like that I had included several YouTube and social media posts from 3rd parties as evidence of factual events; so I removed those supporting links even though Wiki says while not preferred, they are acceptable in certain circumstances. Now the reviewer says that the band doesn't meet the criteria. I've looked at the criteria page and it says that they only need to meet one of the criteria. That said, the meet several. They have articles published about them; had at least two notable members who are listed in Wikipedia; featured Grammy Award winning artists on their albums; had at least 2 albums with a major label (800 Pound Gorilla); did chart on the AIR charts (and MMMAs, which are legitimate organization and are NOT listed in the do not use category); toured internationally with coverage; and are in rotation on an international streaming service (Kids.Radio). What am I missing. It seems the reviewer comment section is too limited to be helpful. 6gs3ds (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6gs3ds, the reviewer told you you needed reliable sources. I see some in this draft, but I also see a ton of crappy, primary sources. You need coverage from reliable SECONDARY sources. Also, this article, it looks like a mess. A huge list of members, a huge list of shows that are supposed to be "notable" without any indication of why they are notable, that's not OK. Please look at GOOD articles to see how it's done. Maybe a cleaner version looks more acceptable to the next reviewer. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that in band members I tried to include them all. Good to know that I should leave out more information than I include to make it more acceptable. I clearly misunderstood the assignment. Thanks too for calling it a mess. I'll be sure to leave out more factual information when I try again. 6gs3ds (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's something called being polite for politeness sake. I was looking for help and advice, you didn't have to go straight to "mess" and "crap". You could have said something like: Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary ones and you have a lot of primary sources, and limited secondary ones. Also, we try not to include everything we can find, rather, Wikipedia articles should include the information that is limited to these secondary sources." But if you want to call my use of "Sorry" and "Thanks" snippy, that's fine. Again, I'm just trying to add an article / be helpful. I guess we all do that in our own way. 6gs3ds (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the snippiness is in passive-aggressive comments like "I'll be sure to leave out more factual information when I try again". "Mess" was me trying to be nice; that the article needed cleanup was made clear months ago already. A half dozen editors have worked on this already, getting it into better shape, and you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is no joke the first time in my life I've been called passive aggressive. If a half dozen editors have worked on this I cannot see that. All I saw was the original comment saying that the citations were incorrectly added (which I thought I then corrected). And the 2nd editors comment which is what I asked for help here about - because the comment was that it didn't meet the criteria. So I asked for suggestions because to me it does appear to meet the criteria (as stated above). Once again, sorry to bother you. Clearly, my being a novice at editing Wiki articles has left you with a negative opinion. Regardless, when I have more time, I'll get back to it and see how I can remove the (as I said) "factual" stuff and just put in the items that have secondary sources, etc. I've read plenty of Wiki articles and they all list stuff like where the person grew up or what school they went to. I'm not sure why or how that's any different than listing the band members names or a discography for the band. As for the mess part, it's a band so there's a lot of information available - I was just trying to include as much as possible. Personally, just to take your advice, I just clicked on the home page and did a quick scan for a name and clicked on it. I would say the article I wrote looks rather similar (again with the difference being it's a band) to this one on the main page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachelle_Ann_Go Granted I didn't read the whole article, nor do I know who this person is, just commenting on your mess comment. Again, if you think it will help get it posted, I'll shorten it. Somehow. 6gs3ds (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
