Talk:Artcell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can someone clean up this article, i don't have time on my hand right now. It'd be great if we can keep the useful information from the interview (or add a link to it) rather than keeping it as it is. Abid Ahmed 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the interview is a copyright violation to begin with. I removed that, and left the facts on the band. Thanks. --Ragib 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Since I don't know enough about the topic this article is about, I can't clean it up enough. But, a comment like - This may be inspiring to other bands in Bangladesh as concerts in Bangladesh typically feature multiple acts - is definitely not encyclopedic. Most of the text, like - They were looking for a bassist and a drummer, when through friends, they met Cezanne and Shaju - reads too much like a fan journal article. Please, someone clean it up. - Aditya Kabir 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with the first comment and disagree with the second. I'm making necessary changes. There's no encyclopaedic way of writing the second item as far as I can think. There's no twist. The fact is stated straight IMHO. Please give more detail about your objection. Thanks. urnonav
-
-
- Removing the following for overwhelming emotional bias:
-
The characteristic elements of Artcell is in the amazing guitar artistry of Ershad - one of the musical masters of the group, the highly technical bass lines of Cezzane, the lighting drumming of Shaju (often regarded as the best in Bangladesh) and the depth and feel of Lincoln's voice. But Artcell is probably "just another technical ProgMetal band" without the magical lyrics of Rumman.
[edit] Attention urnonav
IMHO (if the that means in my humble opinion) is no good. Facts count (if properly cited), not opinions (no matter how humble). How does it matter that that they were looking for a drummer or met someone through a friend? How much relevant it is? How do you assert such statements as facts without a source cited? Well, to be honest, my particular objection is about the tone of voice, which has been improved much. Thanks to urnonav (I am seriously inclined to the proposal you made on my talk page, though I guess managing enough time would be a factor). Please, check the following:
And, this article quotes a few (that's a weasel word) numbers, all unsourced, along with words and statements like legendary, significantly, big experiment. Not encyclopedic, not NPOV, doesn;t comply with the style manual. - Aditya Kabir 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, opinions are why we have discussion. If everything could be fact and no-fact, who'd need to edit? Once again the "through a friend" is just something that happened. How did they find a drummer? Through some mutual friend. I don't think I wrote it; so I'm not saving my line. It's not even that verbose. Expressing facts is important but not to the extent that we trade off readability for it. "legendary" I have an issue with, because it's a personal opinion. I don't like exaggeration, but there's no other way to express that some work was experimental than to say it was experimental. Unfortunately, there are not "rock music" paper publications like IEEE Explore. So, we can't get citations. :p I'd prefer if you also gave your proposed solutions. You might be right, but I can't tell from what you are saying. Best, urnonav 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The policies are quite clear on peacock and weasel terms. The policies on NPOV are more so. Have opinions, discuss them, but don't make them a basis of encyclopedic entries. - Aditya Kabir 14:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
