Jump to content

Talk:Lou Brutus

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


POV

[edit]

I promoted this from AfC, but feel the article is biased toward the subject. If there are any independent sources objectively describing Brutus' programming style, it would be most welcome. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! I have added quotations regarding both programming style and interview style. Please also note, the Special X section is filled with independent source references that make direct reference to the extremely free-wheeling programming style of the article subject. We also plan on further expanding information on the musical career of the subject. Thank you again. Your further insight is welcome! MusicMediaMatters (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 78.26 that there is an issue here. While Brutus does appear to be credibly notable, this is an article that appears to have been written "for" the subject, not "about" the subject. Above and beyond the work to get the article to better conform to Wikipedia formatting and style, the article needs to be significantly reworked to tone down the rather blatant puffery that makes this promotional in nature, rather than a neutral piece about the person. Alansohn (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At your suggestion, there have been numerous edits to neutralize the tone of the piece throughout the article. Thank you for your continued feedback. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn said it quite well. A few more pointers - external links to band websites in the main article space really make the article look spammy. They are appropriate for the External Links section (you have them there as well). I would also recommend not having so many external links even in the "External Links" section. Do we really need the official website, the Facebook page, the Myspace page, and a Twitter page for each entry? It makes it look like the article is trying desperately to promote the subject. I would recommend the official website for each, that would be quite acceptable. If the reader is interested enough, I'm sure they can find all the social media sites from the official website. On the plus side, the layout is good and it is very readable. Given how much positive press is given, surely someone of Mr. Brutus' visibility has encountered some criticism from some notable source, warranted or not, it just seems inevitable. Presenting some of this would really help balance the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken on the links, both in the article and in the links section. They have been modified. Also, thanks to one of you (?) who appears to have cleaned up a bit of the style for us. As for press, critical or no, we have included links for ever notable source that appears available on the net. Certainly there is complaining about him to be found, praise as well, on radio message chat boards and on music boards but to our understanding these would not be considered reliable or notable sources. Are Wiki articles not considered neutral unless something critical can be found on the subject? Must something negative be dug up or else anything positive must be taken out? Much of the "puffery" in the article looks to be the direct quotes we used from the subject which were only added after it was suggested above for more on the his programming style. They've already been shortened but could be taken out. Also, If there are any articles on this subject not included in what we've put up we would be keen to see them. Thanks for the continued guidance. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get discouraged. There's no such thing as the perfect Wikipedia article, unless you only ask one editor. If you ask more than one, you will find disagreements on this point. The sources are all good, that is why I promoted the article in the first place. It is to your credit that there aren't chatboards etc. in the links, I am truly tired of wading through all that at AfC! When I suggested information about programming style, I was hoping for information independent of the subject. It is all well and good to know the subject's take on the matter, but what are other people saying about the programming style and music selection? I agree, I'm not really looking for blatantly negative information, because that type tends to not come from notable sources. But isn't there somebody, somewhere, who says something to the effect of "While Brutus is right to ignore Mantovani in his playlist, he needlessly ignores tracks from the seminal album 101 Strings play Green Day"? The biggest problem with the article is that most statements portray Mr. Brutus in a positive light. When people come to an encyclopedia, they are looking for neutral light. You've worked really hard, so I don't want you to think I am unappreciative of all your efforts. Keep it up, and this might even make "good article" status someday. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've further cleaned up the quotes and made a few other modifications to better streamline the article with an especial eye toward making the article neutral. Combed thru 76 pages of Google links on the subject and found nothing outside of the previously mentioned chat boards etc. to add. If there is anything left on the page that should be further trimmed to "neutralize" it, please feel free to make suggestions. While this article lists many accomplishments it also makes mention of several firings, channel cancellations and programming failures. We do plan on making expansions on the music area of Mr. Brutus' career. Certainly, the Dead Schembechlers received a ton of press of all kinds which, once that is reflected in the article, will bring it up standard. Thanks again for the help. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more cleaning and pruning. It seems much drier in tone but far more neutral. Still plan on adding further expansions on the music side of things including warts and all press. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been more modifications to neutralize the tone of the article. Also, the Music Career portion has been expanded. Please review when you have a moment, with a special eye towards the neutral tone of the article. Thanks.MusicMediaMatters (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the initial notes from the other editors we have made dozens of edits, additions and improvements with an especial eye towards "neutrality." We have gotten no further comments on the editors here nor on their personal talk pages though we have posted multiple messages on each. Unless we hear back from them we are going to assume our changes are fine and there are no further objections to the tone of piece. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the POV tag. This does not mean the article can not be further improved by the addition of further, independent sources. Nonetheless, lots of hard work done here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lou Brutus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lou Brutus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lou_Brutus&oldid=1200407256"