This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Hi Nightenbelle! Thank you so much for reviewing this article stub page on the 1995 film Voices! Along with GoingBatty, whom I admire greatly as an editor here at WP, I realize the time editors put in to review, clean-up, fix, etc an article and make it ready and guideline / policy sufficient for usability by WP readers. I wonder if you might be able to help me just a bit further with a few more explanations and perhaps even by pointing out specific incidences where each template tag pertains to the article itself. That way, any visiting editor wishing to better the article given these guides, like myself, might have a better understanding and "road map" to pinpoint where exactly the troubled spots are. It seems at present that the tags are a bit too vague and I fear if I went back in, I might make more of a muddle and do more harm than good. By placing the specific given tags provided by WP you know exactly the troubled spots, so it would probably be easiest (given that this is not a lengthy article) to simply bring it to the Talk Page, discuss the problems, either fix or even remove, and help get this article free of tags. I only say this because since the article is a stub, being greeted with such a list of tags at the very beginning, it sends a misleading sign to the reader that in some way the article cannot be trust or isn't worth the time to be read until all problems are fix; which I do not believe this is the case. Any light you may wish to shed on the matter would be greatly appreciated, and would ensure a better article that we all can be proud of here at WP. Thanks so much. Cheers. Continue the good work! Maineartists (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would say no problem- but honestly- I don't think I can be any clearer than the tag already is- you need inline citation of sources in the article. And, you need more WP:RS. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nightenbelle. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your time and attention. Albeit, a bit slightly more vague than the actual heading tags themselves. Since this is a very obscure film, with very little coverage; these 4 references are basically what survive as sources for the film; so if there is something specific, I think it best for all involved if you specifically bring to the Talk Page exactly what it is inline that you need sources for citations. Either that, or place specific WP:CN next to a line that will help guide editors to find a better source that may quell your specific request. Otherwise, blanketing an article with "may or may not" tags just confuses editors wishing to improve the article. Drive-by-taggings are only helpful if those who tag are willing to point out the specific reasons for the tags; especially when asked for clarity. There isn't much content here, it would only take a few moments to assist in cleaning this up. If that means removing content, so be it. Plot summaries and casts need not be cited; so basically we are focusing on Production, Reception and Sountrack. I would be more than happy to hear your suggestions. It is less of a community to assume we share the same thought, similar mind and directed intent. Thank you for your assistance. Maineartists (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new page reviewer- which means part of what I do is "drive by tags" for new pages so interested editors may find articles that need work they enjoy doing. So thank you for your input, but I'm going to keep reviewing articles. Now- if you are saying it is not possible to cite sources for each statement in the article- I would be more than happy to remove all unsourced information and then nominate the two sentences less for deletion. Or- you can let the tag stand and try to fix the problem. I'll leave that decision up to you. But - if you can't cite a source for information- it doesn't belong in an article. Not my opionion- that is WP policy. The tagging was intended to attract help for you- but if you want me to just fix the problem- I would have just deleted every single sentence that is not connected to a source. Would you prefer that? It is your responsibility to know WP:CITATION policy. Please review it before creating more poorly cited articles. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. OK. I was trying to be nice here. But I guess that is not the case. Every single sentence in this article came from the sources referenced. A good article does not cite every single sentence when most of that content can be found within the sources provided. Especially when that article is not a major article (i.e. a made-for-television film) on either a subject or contains content that could be debated or seems objective and / or subjective There is more to be said, but I fear that there is not much constructive conversation that would result in a positive outcome. To appease what you feel is correct in constructing a correct WP cited article, I will go back in and cite each and every line in this article; which, of course, to many editors will seem (for a stub) excessive. But then again, placing 4 header tags also might be seen as excessive. I do know WP:CITATION. I also know what WP:CITEKILL is, too. In all the articles I've written, I've never had any editor place so many tags so quickly upon review: ever. I trust GoingBatty as an editor, and would have thought that if there was something so glaringly wrong with this stub article, that they would have brought it here to the article page: which in WP etiquette, would have been the correct procedure when reviewing a page; or at least to the creator's Talk Page. Happy reviewing and thanks for your reply. Maineartists (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maineartists: I came to this article because I occasionally look for articles that have links to Variety that should be changed to Variety (magazine). I fixed the links and made a few more minor tweaks. I made a couple more tweaks after you tagged me above. I did not read each reference to evaluate independence and reliability, and did not evaluate whether there are sufficient inline citations.
@GoingBatty: Regardless of what brought you here, I appreciate your work. I have gone back in with a fine toothed comb and scrubbed the article: removing content that either could not be sourced or was sourced by self-published citations. I also added additional references, bringing the total to 10 in total. The lede and plot do not require citations, but I did place one in the lede. If after all this, the article still warrants these header tags, then I'm just going to walk away; because honestly, I have no idea what the editor in question requires. Maineartists (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over a week since the last entry to this thread. The tags placed on this article on November 2 are no longer relevant, since all conditions have now been met: each line has an accompanying citation, some even have 2 sources (which alleviates the request for additional verification), all self-published sources have been removed, and all cited sources are reliable. I will leave this notice here for another week just in case another editor would like to continue the discussion. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the following header tags: 1. "lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations" 2. "may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources" and 3. "sources may not be reliable" as these have been corrected and no longer applicable. Keeping "needs additional citations for verification" which is needed and necessary. Maineartists (talk)
