Talk:Office (band)

Untitled
This is my first time writing a Wikipedia entry so comments/suggestions/critiques are most welcome. Please add any factual information you can to this article, because right now it is barely a skeleton entry. TIA.

Tracklistings
It's good to have these, but there is no mention in the article about these two albums, i.e. when they were released, album details, etc. I removed Q&A cuz it has its own article... perhaps that can be done for these other two from someone who knows something about them? -- eo 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Office Q&A.jpg
Image:Office Q&A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Self Editing
I see three edits coming from users named massonglossies and scottmasson. I have no way of determining if any of these are actually Scott Masson. Does wikipedia still frown at self-editing articles that deal with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.212.237 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Citations
I am a longtime follower and fan of Office. I played with the first iteration of the band way back in 2000. I looked them up here because I wanted to know the names of several of their albums and noticed that the article was under scrutiny for lack of citations and appearing to be an advertisement. I went through the article and added citations and cleaned up the information presented based on available sources online. Hopefully this will serve to increase the quality of the article and remove its status as a suspected advertisement. The band is, to my knowledge, no longer together, so there is no impetus for them to use a Wikipedia article as a platform for advertising. paco758 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content
Hi y'all. This article has quite a bit of flowery language with content that is not supported by the provided sources. This is a problem, so I'm checking sources and removing content that doesn't line up.

Also removing: - Sources which are not reliable sources (blog posts, links to iTunes pages (I mean come on, an iTunes page!)) etc.

Curdigirl (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This sentence: He also paints and sculpts.

The source mentions painting, but not sculpting, so I'm removing the bit about sculpting.

Removing:
 * 1) External links within body of the article. Two links to songs are included in the fourth paragraph. One link is to Youtube, the other to Artist Direct. The YouTube link is not to an official video. The Artist Direct site link does not have the content at the provided link. There is a source noting an MTV feature of one of the songs, so I removed the content that wasn't RS and changed the language so that it can be sourced to the same article that mentions MTV.

Flagging - not in source given: By the time A Night At The Ritz was released, many of the audience and critical reactions were lukewarm or mixed.
 * 1) This sentence has an RS, but the source doesn't back up the claim. The article is one person's review. The claim states that "many audience and critical reactions" (claim 1) "were lukewarm or mixed."

The claim could be rewritten, or removed. Any thoughts? Curdigirl (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)