Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted January 11, 2009 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Texas / Texas A&M Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas A&M (assessed as High-importance). Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Marching band High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marching band, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marching bands 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.Marching bandWikipedia:WikiProject Marching bandTemplate:WikiProject Marching bandMarching band High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. College football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football 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.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Under the Leadership heading the writer notes that the Bugle Rank does not play during performances and they have banners on with their bugles. The term "banner" probably should instead be "tabard" and, I believe, the Bugle Rank does sound the bugle call "Ruffles and Flourishes" during performances. Gortaleen (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the bugles aren't even playable. The trumpets usually play, not bugle rank. Likewise, I don't think it's a tabard. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Featured Article that has not been reviewed since its promotion in 2007 and may not fulfill the current FA criteria.

- the article has unsourced content, that I flagged;

- the article is primarily based on a single source that lacks page numbers for verification;

- the lead does not adequately summarize the article;

- fails MOS:DOC? Too many Dr. titles around;

- Puffery such as "The drills became even more complicated as Haney added formations and maneuvers never before seen. The excellence shown on the field belied its heavy dependence on precision." / "The following weekend the band attempted their most complicated drill and performed flawlessly"

- there's close paraphrasing with the sources. examples:

• "First performed November 27, 1947 at the annual Thanksgiving Day game with the University of Texas, the criss-cross maneuver and its later variations (specifically the four-way cross) became the band's most anticipated maneuver. Other band directors said it was impossible to do because it required two people to be in the same place at the same time (indeed, to this day computer programs that chart band formations say that this maneuver cannot be performed). To accomplish this, band members step between each other's feet. In later years, people who did not know that the maneuver was first done in 1947 claimed that the drill was designed by a computer. Adams explained, "It's all a matter of mathematics. One man can take up only a certain amount of space at one time and moves in one direction at a predictable rate of speed.""

vs

• "Thanksgiving Day, 1947, was the first time the Aggie Band had performed the criss-cross maneuver developed by Adams. In the original version of this movement, the band is split into two units that then march diagonally toward the center of the field where they meet and pass through one another at right angles. It is a maneuver other band directors have said is impossible because it requires two band members to be in the same place at the same time. In later years some who did not know of its early origin in 1947 would spread the rumor that the drill was developed by a computer. "It's all a matter of mathematics," Adams responded. "One man can take up only a cer- tain amount of space at one time and moves in one direction at a predictable rate of speed."Source

• "One Southwest Conference band director stated, "I dread going against the Aggie Band.... What is so humiliating is to see the Aggie Band do things band directors talk about as being impossible, and do them perfectly. It takes two weeks to recover from the trauma." In 1960, "one band gave up without a fight": the Trinity Tiger Band opted to sit instead of perform and gave the Aggie Band the entire halftime to perform."

vs

• "Another Southwest Conference band director of the era is reported to have said: "I dread going against the Aggie Band.... At least in our stadium there are friendly faces. What is so humiliating is to see the Aggie Band do things band directors talk about as being impossible, and do them perfectly. It takes two weeks to recover from the trauma." According to an article in the San Antonio Light of September 17, 1960, the Aggie Band's reputation had reached the point in 1960 that at least one band gave up without a fight. When the Texas Aggie football team went to San Antonio to play the Trinity Tigers, the Trinity band decided to just sit that one out and let the Aggie Band have the whole halftime.""Source

• "In addition, the early drum majors were chosen in physical combat; insomuch that the candidates were placed in a locked room, with the best fighter / the one emerging victorious, being named to the coveted position. "

vs

• "Some believe that the early drum majors were chosen in physical combat, with the best fighter being named to the coveted position."Source

RetiredDuke (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some good points. I'll do my best to address those. Buffs (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs for all citations. I'll clean those up over the coming days. Buffs (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article is primarily based on a single source that lacks page numbers for verification >70% of the citations are not from that source, so I don't agree with your characterization "primarily based on a single source". Likewise, you reference it quite easily a few sentences later. Now, while it doesn't have the page numbers (and I can add that), it isn't unverifiable. Clarification would be appreciated.

the lead does not adequately summarize the article Expanded. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

puffery (at least those cited) and MOS:DOC Buffs (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional feedback requested. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding place for other potential refs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

@RetiredDuke: Buffs (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I saw your ping. Thanks for checking the review above. Right now we have:

• bare urls;
• missing pages on the first source (I could only verify what Google Books shows me, and that's a handful of pages of a 100+ page book. Verifiability criteria is not met). This book *is* the main source for this article, it is used for more than 40 claims and all other sources are just supporting its claims;
• I see that we still have the close paraphrasing (copy-paste, really) from the main source that I identified above. Wikipedia should summarize its sources, not just copy from them. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Definitely not copy-paste, but most assuredly VERY close paraphrasing (I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point), but I'll make sure that gets changed. I'll get pages added too and fix the bare urls. Again, I appreciate the feedback! Buffs (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @RetiredDuke and Buffs: Taking a look at this article, I see some uncited statements and bare urls. Have other concerns, like close paraphrasing been resolved? Is more work being done on the article, or can this be removed from WP:FARGIVEN? If the article still has concerns, should it go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing any uncited statements. Which ones? There appear to be 2 bare urls that have been replaced. I believe I addressed the bare URLs and the close paraphrasing, but I can certainly work on more if RetiredDuke is not satisfied. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  URLs fixed and I'd been tinkering with a better version since August. But I was waiting for RD's feedback...went ahead and substituted it in the History section. Hopefully that satisfies the the concerns. If there's more, I'd be happy to adjust. Buffs (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buffs: I took another look: I think the uncited statements are because in the list, sometimes there is a citation next to the entry and sometimes not. It should either be before the list (like in "Directors and band staff") or after the entry. Also, for "Directors and band staff", I don't think the list is needed because most of these people are not notable and, per WP:LISTCRIT, Wikipedia shouldn't have indiscriminate lists without context. I think it would be better to merge these lists with the history section and only mention those that are important to the band's history. I would also remove "Joe Ramirez" from "Notable members" as he doesn't have an article and therefore Wikipedia doesn't consider him sufficiently notable. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with nixing the list altogether. Alternatively, a collapsed/multicolumn list might be just fine. I certainly contend that it's not an "indiscriminate list", but it certainly takes up more space than I think is necessary. You tell me your preference if that's the hangup. Buffs (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]