Talk:Westminster Chorus

A Cappella Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Cappella, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of a cappella (professional and collegiate) and related articles such as its groups, recordings, institutions, and public figures 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.A CappellaWikipedia:WikiProject A CappellaTemplate:WikiProject A CappellaA Cappella articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I added the neutrality dispute tag because it's clear that the last paragraph in the article is written from a first-person point of view, it's just been painfully side-stepped by replacing the word "we" with "the chorus". If someone from within the group added this paragraph, just quote yourself (or better yet, the director) and be done with it. (21:33 EST) Bobagat

I have added a tone tag to the history section because in most of the paragraphs, the tone of voice & style are not in line with an encyopedia. See the AOH, Masters, and VM wiki entries for comparsion. (A gold medal chorus should have a gold medal worthy wiki entry.) Jon 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry reads like an advertisement, and needs serious, serious cleaning up to make it even close to encyclopedia-quality. In the meantime, the history section (with the possible exception of the paragraphs on them winning silver and gold in '06 and '07) it a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and should be deleted until a rewrite can be done. Niremetal 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request[edit]

Please update the photo to a Denver contest one, preferably one during the uptune. Jon 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision[edit]

The Vision section doesn't really sound very unique; sounds like a lot of other barbershop choruses. Sjnester (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like much of the article it was un-sourced (or self-sourced?) promotion. I removed the section. —ADavidB 16:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]