Jump to content

Talk:Forte (vocal group)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cleanup template

I agree that the article needs work. It reads in spots like something out of fan magazine, and I'm beginning to clean it up to make it sound more encyclopedic. I am also not sure that the individual members warrant the particularized attention that they now get in the article - if they are notable, then they can be wikilinked; and if they're not, then - well, other than a couple of biographical notes, not much more is warranted. Certainly not a listing of their individual undertakings. The article is about the group, and its activities; not its constituents. JohnInDC (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please keep working on it. There are basic errors in English. Kdammers (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated

Whew! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthdates

It's virtually all primary sources on these except Panikkar's, which could be considered a SYNTH issue if one wanted to be technical. Still, I'm confident: September 17 is established by a news outlet, and other such outlets have mentioned his age (28 as of 2 May 2010, 30 as of 10 November 2011, and 31 as of 18 August 2013—an article that mentions his birthday the following month) without actually listing the year. This preponderance of evidence, in my opinion, invokes NOTSYNTH per both #SYNTH_is_not_a_policy and #SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis (TL;DR: this data is not being used to reach a conclusion that the sources don't support). —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 02:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forte Tenors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Allow me to note that there is a handful of invisible comments on the page. I look forward to your review. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 03:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • How common is the shortening Forte? Unless it's fairly standard, I would refer to the group either by their full name or as "the group" or "the trio" when applicable.
    • They were known as Forte on AGT, and their debut album was Forte (styled FORTE). They still style it FORTE via their PledgeMusic updates, though the project is titled "Forte Tenors from America's Got Talent". Their online presence: website, fortetenors.com; twitter, @ForteTenors; facebook, fortetenors. Their social media posts usually (not always) use FORTE; I've never seen them actually say so, but one gets the impression they'd just use FORTE if it wasn't so generic. (I've just changed it in the article to "(styled as FORTE)" in line with the common Wiki style for what is essentially a brand.)
  • "Forte was created specifically for and rose to prominence during" Clunky--perhaps "Created during the eighth season of America's Got Talent, Forte Tenors rose to prominence due to their appearances on the show." Or something like that.
    • Fixed.
  • I don't think that the Wiktionary link is helpful here.
    • Gone.
  • What's your rationale for including so much about the background of each member?
    • Trimmed. The idea was to speak to how these men would end up together, but some was indeed peripheral.
  • It doesn't appear that the first sentence about Ryu is sourced.
    • Same as second sentence. Comment added.
  • The link for "schlub" doesn't make any sense to me, as it doesn't seem helpful at all.
    • You've lost me ... it links to Forte's copy of their audition and specifically to the moment Stern says what's quoted. I'll look into referencing options. Fixed.
  • The word "rousing" is non-neutral
    • Fixed. Somehow I thought the accompanying note (Cannon's "That might've been the longest standing ovation we've had!") sufficiently covered "rousing".
  • In the first sentence of the "Career" section, specify who the quote was from.
    • Done.
  • Why is "MasterClassLady.com" a reliable source?
    • Granted, this is my opinion, but Rosanne Simunovic has excellent credentials wrt knowing and reviewing music. Since this is a review—and automatically subjective—credibility, not reliability, is the issue. IMO.
  • I don't understand why this non-free music video image is necessary. Could you explain your reasoning to me or remove it? Also, the fair use rationale is not very expansive.
    • It directly accompanies 2014–present graf 2. The description of what all was involved in the making of the video notwithstanding, only the image really paints the picture, so to speak. Also, the rationale was adapted from a similarly used image; can you be more specific? (That being asked, I've made some additions.)
  • Wait, has the second album been released or not yet? I'm not sure…
    • Fixed.
  • Why is the user-generated thing notable?
    • True, this speaks to the individuals rather than to the group, but it speaks to their standing among those who care to vote. Struck.
  • The whole "Genre" subsection, not only mistitled, is pushing it a bit. There doesn't seem to be a bit of substantive information here--there's one user-generated thing and one that's a ranking that's really pushing it—after all, the group itself wasn't ranked as one entry on the list.
    • OperaPulse does single out the group.
  • Why is "Jake's Take" a notable viewpoint?
    • I like his credentials; plus, he has interviewed Page and therefore has some knowledge of Forte. (That said, I've removed the review.)
  • The file in this section is more defendable, but I would still prefer that the rationale is expanded.
    • See above.
  • For the Fort Worth performance, specify who was saying this and why.
    • Each quote in the graf lists its author in the ref; to include it in the text strikes me as repetitive. That said, I've added the site names. One of the disadvantages of any "young" act is a dearth of critical response; again, this speaks more to me of what is credible (rather than reliable) within the context of the subjective.
  • Ref 37 is a 503 (temporarily unavailable) page, but this should just be remedied by itself in a little while.
    • Fixed (I swear I'd just checked that ...)

@ATinySliver: Nice work! Some substantial stuff to comb through or talk about, but it should pass! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 04:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Johanna! I've fixed some issues above and replied to the remainder. I look forward to your response. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@ATinySliver: Great! I'm very comfortable with passing now. Thanks for the quick responses! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
My thanks to Johanna for an excellent review. Cheers! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible hooks: DYK ...

Using amended #2. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Forte (vocal group). There's been several weeks of discussion and everyone seems to agree a move is a good idea, but can't agree on the exact title. Moving to "Forte (vocal group)" because it got the most support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Forte Tenors → Forte (vocal group) – per discussion and research below. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 23:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Forte Tenors → Forte (vocal group) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 21:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Within the GAN transcluded above, Johanna made a good point, reproduced here with my reply:

  • How common is the shortening Forte? Unless it's fairly standard, I would refer to the group either by their full name or as "the group" or "the trio" when applicable.
    • They were known as Forte on AGT, and their debut album was Forte (styled FORTE). They still style it FORTE via their PledgeMusic updates, though the project is titled "Forte Tenors from America's Got Talent". Their online presence: website, fortetenors.com; twitter, @ForteTenors; facebook, fortetenors. Their social media posts usually (not always) use FORTE; I've never seen them actually say so, but one gets the impression they'd just use FORTE if it wasn't so generic. (I've just changed it in the article to "(styled as FORTE)" in line with the common Wiki style for what is essentially a brand.)

With this in mind, and in light of the research noted below, should the page:

  1. remain at Forte Tenors;
  2. be moved to Forte (tenors);
  3. be moved to Forte (tenor group); or
  4. be moved to Forte (vocal group)?

FWIW, there's no obvious precedent; I see no "named" tenor groups besides The Tenors, and FORTE is not a "(band)". Some individual tenors' pages are First Last (tenor), but I see several of those that are completely unnecessary (not common names). —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What about Forte (group)? Eman235/talk 01:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That occurred to me, but seemed insufficiently descriptive ("Group of what?"). —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 01:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll !vote for option 3, Forte (tenor group). Sounds good to me. Eman235/talk 03:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd go with Forte (tenors), if they normally style themselves simply "Forte". On the other hand, depending on how many articles already link to the present title, it may be better to leave well enough alone. But if you change the name, you should also change all the links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTBROKEN, the redirect left behind would be sufficient, I think. Meantime, thank you for chiming in! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 02:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I know this adds annother wrench to the mix, but I'd prefer Forte (tenor vocal group) to futureproof any further need for disambiguation (as redirects of redirects are the bane of wikignomes). My option makes it explicitly and abunduntantly clear that while Forte is the group's preferred identifier, the disambiguation makes it clear that it's a group of vocalists that sing in the tenor range. If the new option isn't available, my remainder rankings are as follows 3 then 1 then 2. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Hasteur, for checking in, I appreciate it. May I suggest that "tenor vocal group" is redundant, since "tenor" refers specifically to the vocal range? With that in mind, would Forte (tenor group) be your preference? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 01:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Following a re-read of WP:NC, I've changed my preference and am also leaning toward Forte (tenor group). The issue is balancing precision with conciseness, which Forte (tenors) lacks—these are not people who just happen to be tenors, they comprise a singing group. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, nuts—a search of articles about singing groups would seem to suggest Forte (vocal group) would more closely adhere to convention. Finalizing request based on the search and the excellent comments above. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
(vocal group) sounds right. Eman235/talk 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forte (vocal group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forte_(vocal_group)/Archive_1&oldid=1136735309"