Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States military premier ensembles/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of United States military premier ensembles[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this meets the FL standards. It was previously nominated and got a !vote of support from User:Gonzo_fan2007, but had to be closed by User_talk:PresN due to a total lack of interest from anyone else. I'm renominating it now in hope it will draw new attention. LavaBaron (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as all of my previous issues were addressed here. Again, nice work Lavabaron! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all of the previous issues have been addressed from the Wikiproject A-class Review and the previous Featured List attempt. I would suggest adding an ALT description to all of the images, but that is the only issue that I could find in the list. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~ Support

All the images including two from the prose, and from the columns of table need ALT description i.e. |alt= field in the image insertion module, wherever not mentioned.
I suggest adding the garrison column, because it is important for the band.
The external links check shows two dead link and one suspicious link.
A short summary of the table in section 2 is required, mentioning the history, the oldest and youngest bands, other other note worthy bands etc. Most of the MILHIS FLs do have the thing.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks very much for this thorough review. I'm in the process of making these updates and corrections now and will ping you as soon as they're done. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga I have now finished making all these corrections, except for the "garrison column" as I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean? Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The emblem images are too domination the entire the entire row. Consider reducing them to some extent, also this creates space for the garrison column I am talking about. Garrison is nothing but the headquarters, for example, U.S. Marine Band it is Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C., for West Point Band it is West Point, New York. The headquarters need to be mentioned. Also per WP:ACCESS, the colour needs a symbol along with it. For example see 1982 Asian Games medal table. Also the key is never detailed. You assigned green to army bands, white for naval bands and so. But this was never explained prior to the reader. Take help of {{legend}}. If this is done there is no need to mention their service under their title. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks for the feedback. Will get to this shortly. LavaBaron (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - I've added a "garrison" column, added a {{legend}}, and resized each insignia by 1/3. Please LMK if I missed anything. Thanks again. LavaBaron (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have provided the legend, there is no need to mention again the service branch. Remove the service mentioned under the name of each ensemble. As I have said before, a matching symbol is needed along with the colour, see MOS:CONTRAST. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks, I've removed the sub-heads and added numerical symbols to the color legend. LavaBaron (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no article for USAFA Band? If there is one, link it, else make it a red link because it is notable. Also link the services in legend. I am done with this here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks again for your patience, I've redlinked the USAFA Band (no article as of yet, it's on my to-do list) and wikilinked the legend. LavaBaron (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Baron. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remark the table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS, there are no row or col scopes, and colour alone is used to designate the units. Also unsure as to why we need such large font in the Ensemble column, nor the over-capitalisation of "DUI, Badge, Emblem, or Logo". And "On Brave Old Army Team" needs a comma after On. Much more to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, and since this initial comment has been summarily ignored for four days, I'll have to oppose this list's promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I see that Baron has addressed the comments. Please have a look at the list. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Why do you oppose, may I know the reason? If could come up with some comments, they can be dealt. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as looks well done and very colorful nice job. Sagecandor (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sagecandor! LavaBaron (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"A premier ensemble is a term used in the United States Armed Forces to refer to a military band that has special status." "special status" sounds vague.
"While branch-wide, as opposed to unit-specific, bands had existed since the formation of the U.S. Marine Band in the 1790s" I would say "have existed" - "had" seems to imply that they no longer exist.
"they are not deployable outside the United States, meaning competition for billets is fierce." I don't think any change is needed, but this seems a surprising comment. Don't some first rate musicians join the armed forces partly because they want to see the world?
" other military media collateral". I am not sure what this means.
Being colour blind, I find it hard to tell apart the marine and army. It is not crucial as you also use numbers, but could you use a more distinctive colour such as yellow or black for one of them?
"active-duty band" What would a non-active-duty band be?
Looks fine. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles, I've made these corrections. To your question, "premier ensembles" do occasionally leave the CONUS for military tattoos, and so forth (the U.S. Army Band recently appeared at the Norsk Militær Tattoo in Oslo), but it's not a regular occurrence as they have heavy domestic commitments primarily in the National Capital Region and their service contracts preclude a duty station outside the CONUS. Many foreign performances are handled by the 120 or so "non-premier" ensembles. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles! LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just a few quick notes on a first brief run-through (oppose still stands).

"United States Armed Forces" or "U.S. armed forces", be consistent.
Do you really think our readership need "ceremony" to be linked?
"There are currently" see WP:ASOF.
Lead image caption is a fragment, no period required.
And "The" isn't part of the show's title.
"While branch-wide, as opposed to unit-specific, bands have existed since the formation of the U.S. Marine Band in the 1790s, the idea of forming superior music ensembles posted in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. originated with John Pershing in the early 1920s and formalized with the transition of the U.S. Navy School of Music from a training program for naval bandsmen to a multi-service institute responsible for Navy, Marine Corps, and Army premier musicians in 1951" how many words in this single sentence?
"typically attracted the highest-caliber musicians available" really? Do international-quality musicians vie to join the US military? I don't think so.
What is EPW?
"Eleven of the U.S. military's 137 regular...." MOSNUM.
I see no utility at all in the colour scheme and odd numbering of the eleven groups.
Instead of all the redirects, it would be better to actually name the key subjects of this list explicitly, i.e. United States Marine Band. Why hide it behind your own abbreviation regime?
dead link right now. Along with all other "usarmyband.com" links.... Maybe they'll come back tomorrow.
No good reason for the larger font in the table, unless you're aiming for that "high school project" look.
You have "Wind bands" as a category, looks to me that these are more than just "wind bands", I see "brass bands" as a minimum... perhaps even "marching bands" and the subsequent refined categories.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed those comments that can be addressed and that don't conflict with consensus input from previous reviewers. I didn't incorporate a few edits I didn't think would improve the list (e.g. standardizing to "U.S. armed forces" throughout since I feel it's more conventional it be written out in the first instance, and abbreviated in subsequent use) or that seemed to represent a personal preference that seemed to conflict with the preference of other reviewers. Sorry you're having trouble with the links! Thanks for the review, sorry you still oppose but respect your decision. Have a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond inline to each comment so it's clear what you have and haven't decided to implement. FWIW the dead link(s) now work, so it would be interesting to know how it's an RS, but otherwise fine. "Standardizing" to U.S. armed forces is a capitalisation issue, sometimes you have Armed Forces, sometimes just armed forces, sometimes United States Armed Forces, sometimes U.S. armed forces. Like the "big font", just looks inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coloured key plus the number is now a bit silly, you might as well have another column for Unit and ditch the maps, considering all but one of those maps shows pretty much the same thing. And it's The Washington Post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, it appears an IP editor changed to caps [2], I've changed it back. LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Close paraphrasing/plagiarism. I performed a source review for the article and checked the references for a few of the bands against the text. The following items were either closely paraphrased or directly copied from the sources:

"a fife and drum corps that performs on 10-hole fifes, handmade rope-tensioned drums and single-valve bugles."
"to perform in support of civic events such as centennial celebrations, sports competitions, festivals, and city or state commemorations."
"and is the only Washington-based military band to have participated in a theater of foreign combat operations."

That isn't what featured content should be. While I'm here, let me add that I found the lead to be about half as long as it should be for a list of this length, and I agree with TRM that the extra-large font in the table looks unprofessional. The close paraphrasing is my biggest concern, though. Since I checked 3 entries and found as many issues, I have to assume that most of the rest have issues as well, not to mention the prose portion of the article. My suggestion is to close this nomination, go through the entire article and correct whatever close paraphrasing you find, and renominate it once fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feels a bit odd to do this on a nomination with 5 supports, but it's been a week since Giants raised some pretty severe plagiarism concerns with no response, and some of TRM's comments have not been addressed in over a month. I'm going to go ahead an close this nomination as not promoted. --Pres N 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.