Talk:Armor & Sturtevant

Comment

Removed advert link by the Chicago Tribune. [1] Timmy12 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Speedy Delete

I've just added several 3rd-party references and citations. Give this article a bit more time to grow. Rosencomet 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't press for this article's deletion, now that there are at least a few references, even though the notability still seems questionable in my opinion. But I have to point out that this article's been around for eight months without any significant additions to its content, except for the list of places where these people have performed, which was added by an anonymous IP and probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article anyway. The "Give it time to grow" argument makes sense with an article that's just been created, but not here.

I will also point out that this article is orphaned, meaning that it's unlikely anyone will find it unless they deliberately search for it. (Which is probably why the article was able to hang around for eight months with no references at all.) Propaniac 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All good points. I will see what I can do about it. If my efforts are insufficient after a while, and no one else adds material, guess it will go. Rosencomet 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a bit row over notability, but this article definately has some issues. The discography section is misleading. Looks like only two are actually albums of any substance, and were done about ten years ago. Two more are Dan Berggren albums (hmm, looks like somebody took some classes with him at Fredonia) and should not be included on the list. More importantly, however, is the fact that this entire article reads like a poorly constructed resume, and violates the neutral standard. I'd hate to see this get deleted just because these people aren't big brand names, but at the same time, we can't have articles that read like adverts. Justinkrivers 09:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to a text rewrite yet, since the main issues listed were lack of citations and links to other articles. It could probably use one. However, I disagree with the notion that an artist or group that plays on someone else's album shouldn't list that album as part of their discography; that's standard practice. I separated those out under a different heading so you won't think it misleading (although the star artist was clearly marked on each album). How old their albums are is certainly not an issue; we have articles about disbanded groups and dead artists all through Wikipedia, and they're not producing new material. Rosencomet 16:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

References and original research

I've just removed quite a few refs from this article, mostly because they were trivial mentions, unreliable sources, or dead links. As near as I can tell, almost all the biographical info is unsupported by the sources listed. Many sources have been just performer bios, obviously written by the performers themselves and certainly not verifiable or reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. If I get around to it, I plan to come back and scrub this article clean. Pigman☿ 23:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call on removing those, I agree with your assessment. I would also like to raise the issue of notability. I'm not anxious to call for an article deletion, but I'm not sure this article makes its case. Justinkrivers (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some of those references back with context in the text of the article for their inclusion, and added links to articles in newspapers and magazines to support both notability and the fact that they have been favorably reviewed in these publications. I have not yet found the review in Dirty Linen, but I will. What I have added are not performer bios but articles. There's more work to be done to update this article, of course. I believe the duo are divorced, for instance, yet they are performing together as of today according to the New York Times. Their website seems to be out of commission, but this may be temporary.Rosencomet (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made several additions and corrections, updating their activities, and corrected the name of the film they worked on (initially, I accidentally used the name of the cover art used on the website).Rosencomet (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosencomet, please let me gently suggest that your efforts might be better directed to focusing on quality references in the article and not so much on increasing the volume of refs. You're really throwing the kitchen sink into the article. Try, for example, picking an appropriate quote from a reliable source and integrating it into the article body rather than listing the myriad mentions of the group in sources of wildly varying quality. I'm also going to say again that I see little purpose in including a long listing of performances/venues. How was this list generated and from what sources? And listing radio programs that have played songs from their CDs seems more like trivia than useful info on the group. However, playing on the soundtrack of a documentary is significant and probably an important milestone in their career. I hope you'll consider these suggestions in the spirit in which I'm offering them: ways to improve the article and focus it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I include a listing that was just a playlist of a CD cut? If so, I agree that it should be deleted as insignificant. However, a live appearance on a radio show, or a showcase of their work with commentary, would be more notable.Rosencomet (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I interpret the following as just a listing of playlist inclusions of CD cuts: "Both of their CDs on the Tatema Music label have garnered air play on folk radio programs nationwide, including National Public Radio's Car Talk, WVBR's Bound for Glory series [15] and internationally on the United States Information Agency's Voice of America." The note for the "Bound for Glory" radio show has listing of them playing live there in 1997 apparently, but the source is hardly WP:V or WP:RS. It's difficult to assess the significance of the event without context and it doesn't yet have a WP article. Despite being an exceptionally long-running folk music radio program (over 40 years), I found only a handful of news stories on it.[2]

Many of the sources in this article remain very thin: mere program or calendar listings. The NYT source is just that, hardly of significance. I'm wondering if it would be useful to have other editors look over the article to evaluate some of the issues I see. Let me ask around. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

COI Tag

Please explain the need for this tag. Who are you referring to. If it's me, this group appeared at an event I help organize, from which I get no monetary compensation, in 1997. They disbanded in 2005. Not too much COI in that.Rosencomet (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

I agree with the multiple issue tags. This article could really use some more input. Justinkrivers (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Armor & Sturtevant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094410/http://www.pennpat.org/uploadedFiles/About/Press_Releases/PR%20Fall%2099%20Grants.pdf to http://www.pennpat.org/uploadedFiles/About/Press_Releases/PR%20Fall%2099%20Grants.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094404/http://www.pennpat.org/uploadedFiles/About/Press_Releases/PR%20Spring%2000%20Grants.pdf to http://www.pennpat.org/uploadedFiles/About/Press_Releases/PR%20Spring%2000%20Grants.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522164832/http://users.erols.com/mooresp/story11-98.html to http://users.erols.com/mooresp/story11-98.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106140718/http://www.erieartmuseum.org./information/contact.html to http://www.erieartmuseum.org/information/contact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025239/http://www.earthforce.org/content/article/detail/1333?PHPSESSID= to http://www.earthforce.org/content/article/detail/1333?PHPSESSID=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513032022/http://www.uusbhc.org/newsletters/newsletter0504.pdf to http://www.uusbhc.org/newsletters/newsletter0504.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928073449/http://www.mshale.com/article.cfm?articleID=1333 to http://www.mshale.com/article.cfm?articleID=1333
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207121356/http://www.wqln.org:80/safeharbor/Film/Credits.htm to http://www.wqln.org/SafeHarbor/Film/Credits.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)