Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of United States military premier ensembles
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
List of United States military premier ensembles[edit]
List of United States military premier ensembles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria. (When reviewing, please keep in mind this is a list, each of the units listed have standalone articles that have been wikilinked; exhaustive information about each unit is duplicative and intentionally not provided.) LavaBaron (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I think that this article currently falls short of the A-class criteria for the following reasons:
- It is overly brief, and does not provide a history of the concept of the Premier ensemble or the individual bands.
- Related to the above the wording is frequently imprecise (for instance, "and in some cases enjoy enlistment contracts that guarantee they are not deployable outside the United States"; "These organizations have typically attracted"; "some premier ensembles have been administered separately")
- The article's brief prose seems very positive, and is similar in tone to material produced by the US military. What is the commentary on these bands? For instance, do professional music critics consider them to be particularly good? Are they considered a good use of resources? Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D - all of your issues have now been addressed and rectified except for the third one; the suggestion that music critics regularly pen reviews of military bands that are sandwiched into Billboard between notes on the latest Lady Gaga single and Blake Shelton's new recording contract seems a little out-of-touch with reality. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article's coverage of its subject is still much too brief for A-class status I'm afraid, and your snarky response to my comment is unhelpful: of course I don't think that reviewers regularly review military bands. But they do attract a range of commentary, ranging from their skills to whether they're a good use of taxpayers' money. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- That would be great information to have - do you have references I could use, Nick-D? I'm only aware of three instances where there has been a serious debate on expenditures: 1860, 1992, 2010. In each of those cases, which I've chronicled in the separate article U.S. military bands, the debate was over unit bands, not premier ensembles. But if you could forward me the references from this other commentary of which you're aware I will happily incorporate it. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article's coverage of its subject is still much too brief for A-class status I'm afraid, and your snarky response to my comment is unhelpful: of course I don't think that reviewers regularly review military bands. But they do attract a range of commentary, ranging from their skills to whether they're a good use of taxpayers' money. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D - all of your issues have now been addressed and rectified except for the third one; the suggestion that music critics regularly pen reviews of military bands that are sandwiched into Billboard between notes on the latest Lady Gaga single and Blake Shelton's new recording contract seems a little out-of-touch with reality. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment and procedural note
- I copyedited for prose but tend to agree with Nick's concerns about brevity. I understand that you want to avoid excessive duplication but you may have tipped things too much the other way. That said, the table looks very attractive and consistent, with all the photos, sound samples, badges and maps -- one thing though, why do we need "United States" in every map caption?
- Now for the procedural: it looks like you have this listed at FLC as well, and articles should not be listed at both ACR and FLC simultaneously -- one needs to be withdrawn, or else a coord for one of the processes will need to arbitrarily close one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your issues have now been addressed and rectified, Ian Rose. LavaBaron (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tks, but my question/suggestion re. "United States" in every map caption in the Post/Station column doesn't appear to have been addressed. I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, it just seems redundant when it's the same for every map, and I think the implication for a list of "United States ensembles" is that they'd be in the US unless otherwise noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've adjusted this now, with this edit: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tks, but my question/suggestion re. "United States" in every map caption in the Post/Station column doesn't appear to have been addressed. I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, it just seems redundant when it's the same for every map, and I think the implication for a list of "United States ensembles" is that they'd be in the US unless otherwise noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your issues have now been addressed and rectified, Ian Rose. LavaBaron (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: G'day, noting the above comments, I only took a quick look. My main suggestion is to change the name of the article to "List of United States military premier ensembles", or something similar, as currently the article name suggests that it should encompass a (potentially) larger topic. I would then suggest changing the second heading in the list from "List of premier ensembles" to "Bands currently designated as premier ensembles", or something similar. Anyway, all the best with taking this list further. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your issues have now been addressed and rectified, AustralianRupert. LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, yes, looks better. Cheers. My only other suggestion would be to collapse the template at the bottom of the article, but that is not a criteria based issue that I can see. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't be much help as lists aren't my forte. Sorry. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, again, I had another look this morning and wonder if there is the potential to mention the relative size of some of these bands (i.e. number of personnel). This source mentions a couple of band sizes: [2] This information could potentially be added to the organization and personnel section. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is an excellent suggestion, AustralianRupert, but I've kind-of lost interest in this article now. I went through a phase of a few weeks where I was interested in writing articles on military bands but I've recently become more interested in the history of formal correspondence and most of my efforts are devoted to the diplomatic correspondence article ATM so I'll need to abandon this review. But I wholeheartedly encourage anyone to take-over this article and improve it with that suggestion (maybe this could even be made a separate column in the table?). LavaBaron (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, I've listed the review for closing over on the co-ord page. An uninvolved co-ord will be able to close it soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is an excellent suggestion, AustralianRupert, but I've kind-of lost interest in this article now. I went through a phase of a few weeks where I was interested in writing articles on military bands but I've recently become more interested in the history of formal correspondence and most of my efforts are devoted to the diplomatic correspondence article ATM so I'll need to abandon this review. But I wholeheartedly encourage anyone to take-over this article and improve it with that suggestion (maybe this could even be made a separate column in the table?). LavaBaron (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, again, I had another look this morning and wonder if there is the potential to mention the relative size of some of these bands (i.e. number of personnel). This source mentions a couple of band sizes: [2] This information could potentially be added to the organization and personnel section. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, yes, looks better. Cheers. My only other suggestion would be to collapse the template at the bottom of the article, but that is not a criteria based issue that I can see. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't be much help as lists aren't my forte. Sorry. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your issues have now been addressed and rectified, AustralianRupert. LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Housekeeping -- I've been bold and changed the name of this review page based on the recent article name change (something I've had a bit of experience at as a FAC coord!); think I caught everything but feel free to check, anyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: If you are free, would you mind doing an image/media license review? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Media review
- File:Old_Guard_drummer.jpg: source link is dead
- All musical performances, whether audio or video, must account for the licensing of the original work as well as the performance - in some cases it is clear, but there are more where it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.