Talk:The Limeliters
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rewrite?
[edit]This article sounds a lot like a PR flyer. A good thorough rewrite seems in order, taking out all the marketing hype. I'll try to do so when I can but feel free to jump in if you get to it first. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to agree. I'm sure they're a fine group, but the gushing praise is a little over the top. 24.6.66.193 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree as well. They are indeed a fine group, but as Wspencer mentions, the article as is sounds like a copy and paste from a promotional group. Talshiarr 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
PR? I don't think so ...
[edit]I would disagree. I think the "fansite" tag was inappropriate for this article in the first place, and should be removed. There's no reference in the text to any fan organization, newsletter, or website.
The article is clearly informative, tells how the Limeliters got their start, who they are, a short history of the performers, and a discography. That's the standard format for the musical group articles that appear in Wikipedia, and standard for reviewers (e.g., Bruce Elder, All Music Guide; album liner notes, etc.). That isn't PR.
I think this article could easily be improved in a few minutes by inserting a few Wiki section headings to break up the text, and giving more reference citations, e.g., in the pgraf about the group's taking a break in 1965, among others. Also to add the "References" section, and a "See also" section, e.g., point to The Kingston Trio and Dave Guard, for starters.
K. Kellogg-Smith 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I really disagree with you. Sure, there is no direct reference to fan sites, etc., but the tone of the writing is far too casual for an encyclopedia entry, and is also pretty far removed from NPOV. Don't get me wrong, I'm a longtime fan of the group, but this article is just not up to snuff. Apart from the question of writing style, it desperately needs sourcing. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did as I suggested above and formatted the original author's article with subsections, adding an infobox, and so forth. It didn't take long to do, maybe a half hour or so at the most. I just got finished added a bit more to the lead paragraph to comply with Wiki format suggestions. I commented out a couple of the superlative adjectives, adjectives which may have led to thinking it was fan oriented. I've also emailed Alex Hassilev to ask for a public domain photo of the current group to insert into "The Limeliters Return" section of the article. The Limeliters were a significant folk music group of the neo-folk and folk era, and are most certainly deserving of a place in Wikipedia. K. Kellogg-Smith 16:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Copy & Paste
[edit]A large portion of this article is simply a 'copy & paste' job from [1] the group's website.
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Roots music articles
- Low-importance Roots music articles
- WikiProject Roots music articles