User:Jonjonjohny/So you want to edit music articles on wikipedia

In light of the development of the Visual Editor application. I have already started to see an increase in the use of it- by IP addresses specifically- instead of the source editing software. And because of this I knew that there would be an influx of inexperienced editors are keen to help develop the articles of the music articles they are passionate for, whether it be for an artist or an album. So this is an essay to help provide a helpful guide in how to cite sources, prove notability, wikify and expand articles about bands, artists and their work.

Wikipedia:The perfect article

Lets get started

Do you know the basics?

Although it is a primary part of wikipedia that anybody can edit, to edit well you need to read and get the gist of it's most basic and fundamental policies: Wikipedia:Five pillars. A very important policy to the creating of developing of articles to take into account is Wikipedia:Notability (music). This labels criteria for when a artist fits into Wikipedia.

Have you found an article...

The primary thing you have to do when finding an article you wish to contribute to is to find one you are interested in enough to follow through. You don't have to know a great deal about the band in question, or even enjoy them. It's if you are willing to put in the work to develop the article to a good standard with good English, comprehensive research and brilliant sources.

...Or are you creating an article?

Adding a new article to Wikipedia's humongous repertoire is very much encouraged, but it's the worth of creating one is the important thing that should come into play. We all like to make sure our favourite bands and albums get the coverage they deserve on this site but do you think they come under the criteria of "Notability of music"? For an article to be notable it can take a

However, sometimes just researching an album can surface far more sources than you anticipated. An example is Astraea (album), and album which had absolutely no commercial success from a band that stylistically has never been accessible. However, piecing together high interviews, reviews and short news coverage you paint a good picture.

Citing sources and proving notability

The refrences section of each article should break down into three sub-sections these include:

• Footnotes - (Primarily see: Help:Footnotes) Footnotes are helpful in certain contexts. To create a foot note you have to input a template and fill it in with the content desired then add at the end "group="nb"", like show to the right {{#tag:ref|Typed content including citations|group="nb"}}. In the references section the template here: {{reflist|group="nb"}} shows how it is structured.
• Citations - {{reflist}} or {{reflist|2}} (for a set amount of parallel lines of citations) or {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} (for automatic rendering of colums b)
• Bibliography - The bibliography is the section where you place printed sources such has multiple page journals and magazine features

{{sfn|Kelham|2012|p=69}}

{{refbegin}} *{{cite journal | ref=harv |last=Kelham |first=Andrew |date= July 2012 |title= Face The Day |journal=[[Rock Sound]] |issue= 162 |publisher= [[Freeway Press]] | editor= Ben Patashnik | location= [[London]] |issn=1465-0185}} {{refend}}

An example of all these sources are shown in a full mark-up in the context of an article below:

Example mark-up of sources and citations

Markup	Renders as
Tlthough they released song as a single on 19 April<ref>Generic news coverage</ref> the band released the music video for the single in September 2016,<ref group=note>They filmed the music video in March 2016 only to be delayed by six months. The singles pre-emptive release was because of the Label's pressure to meet the deadline.{{sfn|Kelham|2012|p=67}}</ref> and it reached a million views on youtube in a week.<ref>Citation.</ref> After the music video was release, there was a surge in single sales in the week following.{{sfn|Kelham|2012|p=69}}<ref group=note>This helps the band to get a [[RIAA_certification#Singles|gold certification]]<ref>Citation.</ref></ref> ==Referneces== ;Footnotes {{reflist|group=note}} ;Citations {{reflist}} ;Bibliography {{refbegin}} *{{cite journal | ref=harv |last=Kelham |first=Andrew |date= July 2012 |title= Face The Day |journal=[[Rock Sound]] |issue= 162 |publisher= [[Freeway Press]] | editor= Ben Patashnik | location= [[London]] |issn=1465-0185}} {{refend}}	This part of the text requires clarification, whereas the entire text is cited. And this need even more clarification. Referneces Footnotes Citations </nowiki> Bibliography Kelham, Andrew (July 2012). Ben Patashnik (ed.). "Face The Day". Rock Sound (162). London: Freeway Press. ISSN 1465-0185.

Community friendliness

Wikipedia is a fulfilling and simple hobby to have, tragically, the community is not as warm to new editors as we wished is was. A certain level of elitism occurs quite often stagnates those editors' growth and expansion of ideas. There are some small things that are good to know when engaging in discussions: Don't Take The Bait/ Ask A Teacher Ask more senior and unrelated editors to contribute their say.

Contentious information

The primary feature of music articles that is contentious music genres. You will face a painful truth a mild-mannered, policy following editor that Genre Warriors exist.

A band article's typical structure

Intro/Lead

A four paragraph maximum introduction to the band.

History

Characteristics

The "Characteristics" is a section which can encompass several different sections. These can be "Band name and logo", "musical style", "influences", "legacy", "live performances" and "imagery". Some of these could be splintered off into their own headings in the article if they get a certain amount of coverage. In some cases, some sections can merge together because of their close relevance or not enough info for a separate section. Such as "Band name and logo" and "imagery", "influences" and "legacy" and, especially for low importance articles of notable but still small artists: "musical style" and "influences".

Members

For the membership section it's important to get a comprehensive coverage. Sourcing the departure of members simply putting a cite next to their name. Perhaps even putting a cite next to a touring members name.

Current members

• Wade MacNeil – rhythm guitar, backing vocals (1998–present); bass guitar (1997–1998)
• Chris Martin – lead guitar, backing vocals (1997–present)
• Oliver Sykes – lead vocals (1997–present); turntables, samples (1997–1999)
• Mickey Madden – bass guitar, backing vocals (1998–present)
• Skrillex – keyboards, synth, piano, turntables, samples, vocals (2000–present)
• Travis Barker – drums, percussion (2009–present)

Former members

• Dallas Green – turntables, samples (1999–2000)
• Diplo – drums, percussion (1997–2005)
• Ilan Rubin – drums, percussion (2006–2008)

Touring members

• Sam Carter – lead vocals (2007-2009)
• Matthew Davies-Kreye - bass guitar, keyboards, synth, piano (2011)
• Winston McCall - guitar (2012)

As you can see from this table, it is completely fictional. But it's structure is one to take note of, as it splits into two collums; one for the current members and ones which had their place in the band for a short time.

Timeline

Time line is important as it showcases things.

Discography

Here you can display the releases a band has published. It is important, based upon wether or not the band has a seperate discography article how much information is detailed. For instance, the La Dispute article shows all of their published work, with both their year and record label in the brackets. But if it is like Rolo Tomassi and the band has a separate discography page then you should only detail the band's full-length albums with only their year detailed.

Videography

A way of listing all the music videos the band has done. It offers very little to the band article as it just lists the videos. In some cases, with their directors and a supporting source of it's existence in a table or brackets next to it. It offers very little to the article and belongs more in a separate discography page, in a comprehensive table.

Filmography

The least common and to be honest should not be featured on a music article. This could only be relevant if a film closely connected to the band, like a documentary about them has been released. That being said, links to this belong in the history section and the navigational template at the bottom.

An album article's typical structure

Reception Section

can usually be broken down into different sections, including "commercial performance", "Critical reception" and "legacy". An album's commercial performance if none significant (i.e. only charts once) could fit under the "Release and Promotion" heading. For critical performance, you need to list all of the most notable reviews of the album within a neat table (the blank template shown below). More notable bands will feature a Metacritic score, an aggregation based on the reviews collated by the site. It should not exceed ten reviews in the table, but as many should be used in the prose as desired. A source should be feature next to each score. The table will look like this:

Professional ratings

Aggregate scores
Source	Rating
Metacritic	75/100
Review scores
Source	Rating
AbsolutePunk	(8/10)
AllMusic
Alternative Press
BBC Music	Favourable
CraveOnline

Legacy, as a section, consists of retrospective attitudes and responses to the album. This can include how the album was received by the public, but only if it made notable by journalists or the band members themselves. It also is a good space to discuss the band's attitude to the work in the years after its released and if it had a particular influence on other artists. An Accolade table should also be included in this section if the album is included in any end-of-year lists from publications. The table would look like this:

Publication	Country	Accolade	Year	Rank
MTV	US	Best Albums of 2013 (So Far)	2013	7
Alternative Press	US	Mid-Year Report 2013: Best Albums	2013	1

Publication	Accolade	Song	Year	Rank
Alternative Press	Weekly Playlist #20: Loooong Soooongs	"Future"	2013	1
Popdust	5 Best Pop Songs of April 2013	"Ain't It Fun"	2013	4	-

Publication	Country	Accolade	Year	Rank
MTV	US	Best Albums of 2013 (So Far)	2013	7
Alternative Press	US	Mid-Year Report 2013: Best Albums	2013	1

Publication	Accolade	Song	Year	Rank
Alternative Press	Weekly Playlist #20: Loooong Soooongs	"Future"	2013	1
Popdust	5 Best Pop Songs of April 2013	"Ain't It Fun"	2013	4	-

Taking your Improvements further

GA Assessment

Peer Review

FA Assessment