Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band/Archive 2

FA submission

Previous comments have now been archived prior to submission for FA status. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it made it! --Wordbuilder 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Was not impressed with this article being featured. point of view problems, parts that sound like they're out of a school brochure, and claims that need citations.Djgranados 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifics would be helpful in improving the article. Please elaborate! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the grammar. It's telling of wikipedia's quality when an article has the phrase "as of now" in the introduction.Thedukeofno 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting or judging the rest of the article, I assume you are referring to this edit: [1], which was made a mere 8 minutes before you added your comment?—Mrand ^T-C 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. This was a recent addition and was not part of the article when it was chosen for TFA. If there are other problems to consider, please specify and I will be happy to change/address these. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel hard to believe that this article is actually featured. It is impossible for a featured article to contain statements such as "complex straight-line maneuvers... are so complicated that some of them have been reportedly found to be impossible to reproduce through computer simulation programs" and "its members eat together, sleep in the same dormitories, and practice up to forty hours per week on top of a full academic schedule", needless to say they are in the lead section and have not been properly referenced.

Even so, nearly all of the references are referring to the books and video produced by the organizations in Texas A&M University, which a clear violation of featured article criteria 1(c): reliable sources. Almost the whole History section is referenced to a single book by the alumni association of the university.

The reference itself may not be a problem if it has been properly edited, but the whole article read like a collage promotional publication rather than an encyclopedia article. The section head "Into a new millennium" reminds me a brochure. The peacock terms and sentences such as "The band weathered the catastrophe and emerged with a greater legacy" are filling up this article.

Any Wikipedia's newcomers will question the reliability of other articles after reading this featured one on the main page. Dono 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, almost everything I've been getting (from both newcomers and veterans) is support as to how good the article is. I would be happy to address specific concerns. As for no refs in the lead, it was IAW WP:LEAD at the time it was promoted (refs were not needed then in the lead).

Are you saying that sources from Texas A&M are not reliable? If so, why? What is the problem with "complex straight-line maneuvers" and "its members sleep..."? The sentence "The band weathered the catastrophe and emerged with a greater legacy" was agreed upon by 18 other editors as a conclusion to the previous paragraphs (as was the subsection title) and was not considered "peacock". The book in question is NOT published by the alumni association, but even if it were, why is that not reliable. It is actually published by the University Press and has well over 500 citations...perhaps you should actaully read it before criticizing it? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

did an aggie write the software program that couldnt model real life or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.159.6 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Insults—thinly veiled or otherwise—are not constructive. If you would like to disagree with something, please do so without attacking. →Wordbuilder 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dono. I was embarrassed for Wikipedia yesterday. My huge problem with it was of course the inadequately sourced, probable-myth line about the computer software right up in the intro. I also agree that this article is mostly an exercise in boosterism. Tempshill 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you assert it is a myth or boosterism? How is it in any way inadequately sourced? Please provide some evidence as to how so for all of the above. The sources provided are of the EXACT type that Wikipedia PREFERS. Please see below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance

As much as I like the band, I am not sure why wikiproject Texas ranked the band as "top" importance side by side with Texas A&M University. It seems to fit better with the mids.

Mid Subjects fills in more minor details

   * Unique notable cultural, sport and entertainment traditions and celebrations
   * Folklore
   * Minor geographic and geological sites
   * Major architectural landmarks
   * Cities/Towns 10,000 - 49,999
   * Former federal and statewide politicians; sitting mayors

This band is not more important then a city of 10,000 people. and it is an entertainment tradition more so. Oldag07 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a Texas thing. Football is god, and the marching band and cheerleading form the rest of the trinity. ;) 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

In an attempt to address some concerns, I'd like to talk about each of your changes

• "...traditional marches and Aggie fight songs, are so complicated and precise that computer marching simulations say some of them cannot..." Our "fight songs" (we only have one song that is a "fight song" and we prefer to say we don't have a fight song...we have a war hymn!) ARE traditional marches. Though, true: it is "some" - I kept that for clarification. Good catch.
• "at the time, an all-male military school." Doesn't add anything to the discussion and doesn't pertain to anything other than the history of the school, which is explained in detail in the provided link.
• "at A&M" it was not called A&M until later (1930s or so). It was AMC then.
• "Aggie War Hymn" EXCELLENT ADD!!!
• "(and later, computer simulations)" This is addressed in the next sentence.
• "Kyle Field's" Note the apostrophe de-links the "s". As stated in WP:MoS, it should be done in the manner already used.
• Removal of "all drills". Please note that they still use whistle commands for parades, so "all drills" is necessary
• "After another whoop," kept

Feel free to join the A&M Wikiproject. Contact me if you need help getting set up. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible new photo

File:1348506145 eef2393dc7 o Fightin Aggie Band north end of Kyle Field.jpg

Band coming onto Kyle Field

Hello, I found this nice photo today on Flickr and it has the appropriate license, but we already have great photos here. I put the new photo on Commons so we can decide if there is an appropriate place to use it. Best, Johntex\^talk 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This photo is ideal! Thanks for the heads up! Specifically, this photo shows the band during the "run-up" at the Fresno State game...sad...it shows the 19-0 lead we blew to end up going into 3OT to win by 2. — BQZip01 — ^talk

I'm guessing the north end of Kyle Field would be to the left, right?  :-) Seriously, I'm glad you like the picture. If you follow the link to Flickr, the same photographer has other great photos of the game as well. This one was my favorite one of the band. BTW, I suspect the Ags blew that lead deliberately just to keep FSN from switching over to the TCU at Texas game. Diaboloical. Johntex\^talk 16:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I like your theory better than the likelihood of reality... — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

<grin> Well, it look like the folks at Commons did not like the name I used. I will re-upload. Johntex\^talk 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)