Talk:The Histronic

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

All of the words written in this article are from members of the media (third parties). Please do not delete this article. Feel free to debate the contents here on the talk page, and I'll make the revisions necessary. Thanks much!

As I told the original author: please edit the article to make it strictly factual, non-promotional, and to remove the quotes, which amount to copyright violations. Remember that Wikipedia policy strongly discourages editing by those with strong affiliations to the subject. As it stands, it is not at all clear that the article meets WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia's requirements for the notability of musical acts. Acroterion _(talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are the quotes copyright violations? The sources have been cited, and it follows all the criteria, please see WP:MUSIC, "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," 1. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[footnotes 2] except for the following:

▪ Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. ▪ Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. ▪ An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Also, as far as notability goes, please see WP:MUSIC, Criteria for musicians and ensembles, the first line reads: musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

(The Histronic has toured the U.S.)

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

(The only band in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the upper Midwest performing livetronica.)

8. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

(Featured one hour interview, 01/02/09, F-M Experiment, Episode 48, KNDSradio - http://icedbreaks.blogspot.com/

Again, if you have further issues, let me know and I'll fix them, but as far as notability goes, the Histronic fits into three of the categories and according to the opening line of WP:MUSIC, "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." Also, the sources in quotation marks have been cited, and follow all the criteria listed, please see WP:MUSIC, "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," 1. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. All points made are from valid, cited third party sources.Minnesotamusicfreak (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, can you make all this clear in the article? Right now it's a mess, and none of this is obvious, although I inferred it, and therefore didn't delete it. The article is presently a collection of laudatory, unencyclopedic quotes from reviewers, which can just as well be linked. Quotes are strongly discouraged, and extensive extracts are, in fact, violations of copyright, as Wikipedia uses a very liberal GFDL copyright scheme, which is certainly not how the reviews were published. The article needs extensive copyediting to comply with Wikipedia's manual of style, and it needs to be strictly factual and non-promotional. I'd do it, but there would be three sentences left after the peacock words and quotes are removed. Best if you do it. Please refer to other, comparable articles for an appropriate style and tone. Acroterion _(talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article's not a speedy candidate, but I question whether jambands is a reliable source or the coverage is more than trivial. Likewise, questions a to whether kndsradio amounts to a national station exist. Nuttah (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll work on organizing the article better, and making it more encyclopedic. Thanks for not deleting it. I'll shorten the quotes to the ones that define the band. I couldn't disagree more with this statement made during the previous entry: "reliable source or the coverage is more then trivial?" Are you kidding me? Jambands,com is not only the world's most viewed jamband site, but they are also affiliated with the number one selling and nationally distributed jamband magazine Relix (http://www.relix.com/). How is that unreliable? I have included direct links to their site, and to the specific article. If you want to question the author feel free to send him an e-mail.Minnesotamusicfreak (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at another band's article and used it to fix the formatting. I've deleted the extensive quotes, and made the article more encyclopedic (no more peacock words). If you have further suggestions, revisions, please discuss them here on the talk page, and I'll be happy to fix them. Thanks for your input! Minnesotamusicfreak (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! I leave it to others to debate the reliability of specific sources, details of notability, etc., but the article is vastly improved. Acroterion _(talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]