# Talk:Wicked Lester

In both the KISS X-Treme documentary and the booklet that accompanies the box set, don't Gene and Paul say that they were walking away from their Epic record deal by quitting Wicked Lester, as opposed to being dropped by the label as this article says? wikipediatrix 04:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph that mentioned a one-time only "reunion" of Wicked Lester.  Without a verifiable source, this is nothing more than a rumor; and therefore doesn't belong in the article.  --Cholmes75 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass
Well done, the GA has passed successfully —Minun Spiderman 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

According to an interview Bill Aucoin (the Kiss manager from 1973 - 1981) did with Kiss Army Online there is no confirmation that there was an as in Rolling Stone.  There was an ad, but it may or may not have been in Rolling Stone:
"KAO: Its been confirmed that there was no ad by Peter Criss in Rolling Stone looking for a band. The "will do anything to make it" Rolling Stone ad is pure fiction. How did Peter actually meet the band? Was it through his connection with Decca?
BA: I am not sure that is true. There definately was an ad. I am not 100% it was in Rolling Stone but there was an ad."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AltrEgo2001 (talk • contribs) 

There are multiple sources that list the ad as having appeared in Rolling Stone.  In fact, Peter's ex-wife Lydia kept a copy of the ad.  Given that Aucoin was not in the picture back when Peter joined, it's not surprising he isn't sure what the real story is.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The information regaridng the events between CBS and KISS regaridng the purchase of the Wicked Lester master tapes is not correct.  It is, first of all, unverified, original research.  Secondly, the inference as written is that KISS themselves released the album known in fan circles as "The Original Wicked Lester Sessions" when this is patently untrue.  No copy of the Wicked Lester album has ever been released in its entirety by KISS and any such "release" is clearly a bootleg.  The only official Wicked Lester releases from KISS came on the KISS Box Set.  I have edited this portion of the entry, as the way it is now, it makes absolutely no sense. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Wicked Lester/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
 To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 12, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. 

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
One citation needed tag placed in March 2009 remains unaddressed; ref #3 KissFaq is not a reliable source.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A couple of referencing issues need to be addressed. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No attempt has been made to address these points so de listed. Please read the banner at the top of this reassessment to see what to do next. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wicked Lester/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cannibaloki 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
The article needs a copy-edit to improve its flow and readability.
Will re-visit with fresh eyes tomorrow.
I think it reads well now.
B. MoS compliance: 
In the members section there is an excess of bold text.
That section has been removed
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
The article is largely sourced by three books, all offline and lacking the pages numbers. In the two sources that are online I did not find original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Searching on the Allmusic's website, I found content that can be used to expand and add details to the article text.
I added the bit about them fearing CBS would release the pictures without make-up, was this what you were referring to? I couldn't find anything else that I thought should be added.
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
On hold for a week.--Cannibaloki 01:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's good to go, let me know what you think and thanks for the assessment. J04n(talk page) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 Passed.--Cannibaloki 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


### Comments
"The group took the name Rainbow shortly thereafter. [...] After the show, the group discovered that there was already another band called Rainbow. They decided to drop the name, and quickly settled on Wicked Lester." Why the group chose Rainbow and later Wicked Lester?
No indication in the books of where 'Rainbow' came from, added the bit about the origin of 'Wicked Lester' as a name.
"The second, during the summer of 1971, was at an Atlantic City, New Jersey hotel hosting a B'nai B'rith Youth Organization event. [...] They made the decision to start a new version of the group, and began auditioning for a drummer in the fall of 1972." According to WP:SEASON, "during the summer of 1971", "in the fall of 1972" and "Throughout the summer and fall of 1972" should be rewritten.
done
"The first new member they added was drummer Peter Criss, who had placed an ad in Rolling Stone. The ad stated, "EXPD. ROCK & roll drummer looking for orig. grp. doing soft & hard music. Peter, Brooklyn." [...] In early December, Paul Stanley placed an ad in The Village Voice stating, "LEAD GUITARIST WANTED with Flash and Ability. Album Out Shortly. No time wasters please," rather than the historically incorrect "with Flash and Balls." The ad ran for two issues, December 7, 1972 and December 14, 1972, and the band had to run several sessions of auditions." According to WP:QUOTE, the quotations above should be worked into text to flow and organization of the article.
not sure that I agree here, those brief ads are so much a part of the history of WL and Kiss that I believe they should be included ver batem.
Please rename the subsections "Rainbow" and "Wicked Lester".
I'm not disagreeing here but can't think of what to change them to.  Any suggestions? I may come up with something when I have fresh eyes tomorrow.
I removed the subheadings, I don't see them as useful.
You should add subsections to the section "history". Keep in mind that "Headings of sections (including subsections) should be unique on a page."--Cannibaloki 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I put in subheadings, what do you think? J04n(talk page) 12:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like vandalism, but I will accept.  --Cannibaloki 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you convert the bulleted list in "the unreleased album" section to text?
done
"The only part of Wicked Lester's album to actually be released, initially, was the cover art, which was used for The Laughing Dogs' debut album in 1979." What is the album title?
self-titled, included
The sections "former members" and "lineups" are really necessary?
agree that they aren't, they're gone
I think the section of related bands is irrelevant, remove please.
agree, gone
Additional information should be merged into the Wicked Lester section.
agree, done
You forgot to add the pages of books.
done

I've heared in a interview by Ace himself he didn't show up in different colored shoes and that the entire thing was a myth CompuTerror (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I’m reading the book called KISS behind the mask, it’s the official authorized autobiography of the band, Gene Simmons says on page 138 that the night of KISS first concert(which was with Ace & Peter) they changed the name from Wicked Lester to KISS, so after Ace & Peter joined they were still going by Wicked Lester. 
So I think Gene Simmons knows what he’s talking about, Ace & Peter should be added as members.

Why is this article separate from Kiss? And, if there is some distinction that I am missing,  how does that not also apply  to Rainbow? I could understand 3 articles or 1 article, but 2 doesn't make sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)