Talk:Lonnie Mack

message: Hello, WebHamster.  I've left a message on your own page requesting help with more footnotes.  I now see that there is another parenthetical citation which can be reduced to a footnote.  It is in the first paragraph after the boxed quote from SRV in the section on Mack's comeback in the 1980s.
Regarding photos:  I have some free-use photos taken at Lonnie's performance in Nashville in 2007, the one to which I refer in the final paragraph of the article.  I have no clue how to get them into the article but could send them to you if you could instruct me how to do so.  Likewise, Lonnie's own website has a dozen or so photos showing him playing with Eric Clapton, the Rolling Stones, etc.  You could take your pick from there.  If you feel you need consent to use those (they are all just snapshots) let me know, and I'll get Lonnie's consent.
Thanks in advance.  Your editorial assistance has been very helpful.
slp512Slp512 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to WebHamster

message: This is a great article and is well on its way to GA or A status but some work is needed on the 'lead in' section. It's far too short. It needs to be a maximum of about 4 paragraphs and be a mini version of the article itself. WP:LAYOUT gives more details. It may be worthwhile someone requesting a peer review at WP:BIOPR for more advice on what's needed. A definite need though is/are free-use images in addition to the album covers. ---- WebHamster 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead in section

message: The article is starting to get heavy laden with POV. I had to revert User:Slp512, whose been working hard on the article, but at the same time was caught altering cited text to puff it up with his own original research and praise... which is akin to vandalism. No one can alter cited text to match their own personal POV. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The contentious diff can be found here. The new text, with proper citation, appears here. As we see the difference between the two edits is the word perhaps for the term "guitar hero". Accusing an established editor of POV and suspected vandalism on an article he worked so hard for and brought to such a great shape, based on missing a single word is, let's say, not proper wikiquette. Dr.K. (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV clean 

message: Hello, slp512 here.
Not clear if you consider some of my article to be vanadalism, or who was "caught altering cited text".  Please specify.  If I am the alleged culprit, I'd like to respond but need specifics.  In any event, please state what you find objectionable, so that I can either (a) explain myself or (b) attempt to fix it.
Many thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to "POV Clean" 

message: Hello, slp512 again.  To avoid needless exchanges:  I have backup for most of the article, much of which backup has been cited.  The rest of the material, as near as I can tell, is not even fairly debatable.  For what it is worth, there is a wealth of material I did not include, as it is known to me as a personal friend of LM, but has not been aired in any previous publication.  Accordingly, I left it out.
As to POV generally, I admit to having one; I can't imagine that anyone but a fan or friend would care to write an article worth reading on this topic, and, in fact, no one had. I recall that there was a "stub" article there several months ago, which I attempted to enlarge until someone else objected to neutrality or tone.  Not knowing what else to do, and having no guidance re specifics, I ended up deleting my work product entirely, starting again from scratch months later.  Now comes another objection.  I understand that someone out there may have objections, questions or concerns; what I request is that you make them as specific as possible, so that I may focus upon them and attempt to satisfy them, short of scrapping the article a second, and last, time.
Thanks in advance.
slp512  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, POV is the new bogeyman. Everyone sees it everywhere. Sightings have been reported all over the place. Its mythical status is only second to the Yeti. In addition to being a monster it also presents itself as a psychological condition: POVnoia, similar to paranoia with similar symptoms related to detecting POV where none exists. Don't be discouraged though. This is a great article and your efforts are being appreciated. I'll have a look and I'll try to see if it needs any cleanup anywhere and I'll let you know. Dr.K. (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi slp512. I checked the article and although it is well written and its technical content is great and expertly described, in some sections it uses colourful adjectives (like "mesmerizing") with no inline citation that someone used such an adjective. If we can provide these citations they can remain, otherwise colourful adjectives can be taken as POV. In some places it uses a conversational style of prose such as when describing rumours of Mac's death as overly exaggerated. Again here we can tone down the prose a bit and concentrate on just providing the facts. I can help if you wish or you can trim it accordingly. The "scarlet notice" will not remain for much longer as soon as we fix these imperfections. Please let me know. 
Dr.K. (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Response to POV Clean 

message: Mack's 1963 instrumentals "Memphis", "Wham!" and "Chicken-Pickin'" are now recognized as the first recorded rock guitar solos built around a five-note blues scale. This is a statement that appears repeatedly in this article and it is palpably untrue. Rock and roll guitar solos, since long before Lonnie Mack, used the "five note blues scale." To be honest, this irritates me to no end. There were literally dozens of guitar solos using the pentatonic scale before Lonnie Mack came out with Memphis. No offense to Lonnie Mack, who is a fantastic and truly influential guitarist. But really, it's harder to find a guitar solo in the 1950s and 1960s that wasn't based around a pentatonic scale than it is to find one that is. All of Chuck Berry's solos are based around a pentatonic scale, particularly his instrumental Deep Feeling. On the rare occasions when Bo Diddley allows a single note solo, it's always in the pentatonic scale. Elmore James worked with Big Joe Turner and turned in a raw, pentatonic based solo on the song "TV Mama," in 1953. Those are only three examples. Realistically speaking, nearly all of the early rock and roll guitarists were learning from what musicologists call "the folk tradition," meaning they were figuring out how to play on their own by emulating their favorite players and records, and by asking other players "How did you do that?" Anybody who was learning guitar back then would have been instructed on how to use the pentatonic "blues" scale almost immediately, because the scale gives the impression of having no "wrong" notes, especially if played over a I-IV-V progression. So really, every early rock guitarist was using the pentatonic scale, simply because they were modeling themselves after the jazz and blues guitarists they admired - who also used the pentatonic scale. So, can we agree to modify this outrageous claim and bring it down to something a bit more realistic?--Happydog (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got my go ahead. You sound knowledgeable and your proposal is reasonable and I hope slp512 also approves. Thanks for offering to help. Also if you find any other claims to clean up please do so. I would like to take out the tag from the article as soon as possible so go ahead and clean it up and in the unlikely case slp512 disagrees he can revert it back. I am going to clean up a few things and slp512 will have the final word since he is the original author and holds an important place in this article and I am not here to usurp his function. If slp512 does not approve of something he can revert it back. I think the likelihood of repeated edit reversals (euphemism for an edit war, but we have to use civil expressions) is zero.  Dr.K. (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original author was Mahanga back in 2005. See WP:OWN. No one owns any article. This article is pretty ripe with adjectives and references that don't really support the added text they're "imlined" with. It has a long way to go. A review/cleanup request has been placed to the guitarist project members as well as a few other veteran Wikipedians who know how to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the volume down please. You don't have to sound as if you are campaigning at the back of a truck with a megaphone at hand. Sorry if I touched the article ownership sacred cow and the associated orthodoxy but you don't have to give uninvited lectures to established editors. As far as sows ears analogies I'm sure we can do better than that. Dr.K. (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Great effort so far. Good edits. I will check the article as soon as you finish editing and I'll put some fact tags where I think is not clear if the facts are supported or not. Then you can put the citations there or somehow address the points. Dr.K. (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Post edit conflict comments: Thanks Slp512. If the citations can be provided as far as I am concerned it will be a great article. Take care and see you again. Dr.K. (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't apologize Slp512. You have always been a gentleman and I really appreciate that. It has been a great pleasure working with you. I implicitly know that the facts you provide come from a good source. As far as your questions, in general yes. If you can justify these claims in some close, logical manner I will not have an objection to remove any of the tags. Please go ahead and I will stick around to help in the background. (And it is not a bother). By the way feel free to ask me at any time if you have any questions. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The least I could do. Any time you need to upload or import a picture into the article I will help you. Just let me know. I leave it up to you to take any photos as you see fit. Just say hi to Mack for me :) All the best. Dr.K. (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Have a good trip. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Rock Guitarist to use a five-note blues scale?

message: It took a little longer than I thought it would, but I resumed editing this piece a few days ago.  It was helpful to get away from it for a while.  That made it a lot easier to spot the remnants of "POV", and to delete them.  In the process, many passages were eliminated which, had they remained, would have required citation to outside authorities.  Most of the deleted material was essentially duplicative of cited and quoted sources, so its elimination not only does not hurt the article, it streamlines it a bit.
I also notice that others have made helpful edits, for which I thank them.  All good changes.
In the next few days I will add source citations for the remaining passages which require them, and that will conclude my work on the composition of this article.  At that point, I'd appreciate it if one of the editors who have been so helpful in the past would reduce those citations (which I will place in the body of the article) to footnotes, as I can't figure out how to do that. 
One last comment:  I had planned to take photos of Lonnie Mack when I visited him in early March, but accidentally left my camera with relatives in Atlanta when I drove up to Tennessee to see him.  I will find some photos on the internet that I think can be safely used, without violating anyone's copyright, and leave a message here as to where those can be found, in the hope that, again, one of the helpful editors will insert them into the article at appropriate places.
Thanks to all who have helped.
slp512
:Welcome back slp512. Thanks for the feedback about my edits. Don't worry put the refs in and I will convert them to citations. I can also help with the the pics. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back again, with final edits 

message: Dr, K, I'm done now with the additional citations, of which there are many.  I have placed them in italics so that they are easier for you to spot.  They include not only those which I was asked to provide, but several others.
In addition, there are two extended quotes which, for the sake of layout consistency, should be in boxes.  One is the second paragraph of the section entitled "1963: 'Blue-Eyed Soul' ballads".  The other is the second paragraph of the section entitled "1970s: Flying 'under the radar'".
Thanks for your kind assistance.
SLP512
:Thank you Slp. I'll start the conversion soon. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some citation needed tags on personal recollections in the life section because I am not sure if they are covered by the citations provided. Please let me know. --Dr.K. (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out: Second, even aside from the color of his skin, Mack's persona simply did not fit the accepted profile of an R&B performer. Because a) I think it does not belong in an encyclopedic article phrased the way it is. b) It can be inferred why Mac does not fit the profile. c) The reference by the critic makes it clear. Referring to "skin colour" etc. can and should be avoided. The facts speak for themselves. We don't have to over-describe the conditions. Dr.K. (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling Dr. K 

message: I now have a good photo of Mack playing at a concert in 2003.  It was taken by his long-time friend and webmaster, Russ House.  I have it as an attachment to an email from Mr. House, and also put in in the "my documents" folder of my computer here at work.  But I can't figure out how to get it here (no cut and paste option that allows me to do this), so can you give me an email adress to which I could send it along with the written consent of Mr. House?
Thanks.
slp512
:I think we should contact an administrator with access to OTRS who can receive emails regarding use of pictures in Wikipedia. Is your friend willing to license the picture under GFDL, so that anyone on the web, not only Wikipedia, can use it? --Dr.K. (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already contacted an administrator. Let's see what she says. Dr.K. (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Great. Thanks slp. Let's wait then. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks Riana for your fast and courteous reply. I will do just that as soon as I get a confirmation. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok slp. You can tell your friend to send me a link to the pic and leave a message on my talk page with his permission or any other questions and I will start the process that Riana has just outlined so kindly. Dr.K. (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The image has been uploaded as LonnieMackRisingSun.jpg, licensed under GFDL, and the email sent to permissions@wikimedia.org with the Riana-provided agreement.  I appreciate the assistance of Riana and Dr.K and am pleased for the care that has been taken to make the "Lonnie Mack" entry an objective and accurate one that all concerned can rightly take pride in having birthed.  Heraclitus333 (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much Heraclitus for your notification and your kind comments concerning my small contribution here. Take care and it's been very nice meeting you. Dr.K. (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Dr. K re photo 

message: If Russ doesn't contact you in the next few days, I'll call him.
Meanwhile there are two references which need to be reduced to footnotes, one in the 4th Para. of "Career" and the other in the 4th Para. of "Significance...".  Thanks again for doing this for me.
slp512
Thanks slp. Will do. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you slp. It is obvious that you understand the subject matter better than most and certainly better than me. The problem is that we cannot become critics ourselves because that would be original research (WP:OR) and POV. I learned this also when I expanded the article Lawman (film) and made some comments that, although logical, were not supported by citations so I had to rewrite the section. So please excuse this tag business but if I don't do it someone else will slap it some other day and I don't want this to happen. I'll convert the citation and reread the article for any weak points. Thank you for your patience and it was a pleasure working with you. Dr.K. (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much slp for your kind comments. Indeed it pains me to tag material that I know is true and then see it disappear. Your experience and the facts that you present are indisputable. The problem is that in this business (Wikipedia) anyone can edit anything. So a few editors come and fill this article, (or any other article), with fiction. The only line of defence is the citation. It is not a perfect system but unfortunately it is the only one that gives undisputed credibility to an article. In fact the article as it stands now may be the best cited article on Lonnie Mack on the web and indeed anywhere. My overall citing experience in Wikipedia has also transformed the way I evaluate things in the real world as well. For example when I read a nonfiction book and the author makes an assertion about something without supporting it with a citation I simply don't believe it, whereas in the past I would have accepted it much more readily. So yes we sacrifice many facts when we can't find citations, but the supported ones that remain make this article the best source on Mack anywhere. That's not a bad tradeoff at the end of the day. How many biographies published in book form support every fact they give with a citation? I don't think they even support 10% of their claims. I don't think I'll ever buy a biography book again after I got used to this citation process here. It's simply bulletproof. Anyway thanks again and we'll talk soon. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks again slp. You did an awesome job. I think the job is done. However I can't find the second reference. Could you please quote a sentence nearby? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent. I think, after all of this tireless work on your part and especially with the citations you provided the article has taken a great shape. I am very satisfied with the number and reliability of the citations and I think the job is now done. If it needs a few tweaks here or there we can always check this out anytime in the future. For instance I'll try to streamline the citations so they don't repeat the same titles multiple times. Thank you for your contributions and your trust and I reiterate that it was a pleasure working with you. Let me know if you need anything in the future. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Will do. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. All the best. Dr.K. (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Dr. K 

message: Hi slp. I just wanted to know if you can find a reference for the following sentence:
Finally, Mack's best-selling single, the instrumental "Memphis", was based on the melody of a Chuck Berry tune. Because we have to provide a backup citation for the reader who is not familiar with the origin of "Memphis". Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks slp. Just finished two more citations. Dr.K. (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: My pleasure as always slp. Good luck with your research. Let me know if you need anything else in the future. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Is this ok? Dr.K. (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Article has been expanded nicely. However ther is a major overkill on WP:QUOTE throughout this article. An excellent player for sure. I was pleased to see someone put some effort into it. If the WP:QUOTE issue could be cleaned up some (cut at least half of them... keep just the best ones) I would almost push this page for a GA review. If the refs were formatted correctly (I am just refering to the book refs/Harvard reference format) it would be a shoe-in. Anger22  (Talk 2 22) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Anger22 for your nice comments. I really appreciate your succinct and clear instructions. I also happen to agree with you on all of your remarks. Even though my involvement in this article was more of a nice accident than anything else, I will try to help any way I can. However as you seem to be very knowledgeable in this area and you have a clear sense of direction, I would invite you to also please go ahead and modify as necessary. I also hope slp512, a regular editor of this article, also lends a hand in this endeavour. Take care for now and it was very nice meeting you. Dr.K. (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks again slp512 for your nice comments. Your effort here has yielded a great article. It was my pleasure to assist in the modest way that I did. I will try to eliminate some of the quotes and replace them with something equivalent but more streamlined. I appreciate your desire to withdraw and involve others in the process of editing this article but please keep an eye on it and if you don't like the removal of any quote that I may attempt please feel free to revert me. There is no edit warring between friends! Working on this article has taught me a lot about a genre of music I was clueless about. That's why I find it so much fun. But please be around so as to guide me in this process. I'll try a few edits in the coming days. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Great. See you around. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure slp512. Thanks for the nice comments, your instructions and for sticking around to oversee this. It's nice to know that I will have some help in this task from an expert. Talk to you soon. Dr.K. (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There are a couple of endings that have to be filled in, such as a sentence ending in: wrote:Insert footnote text here where nothing follows. I left it on purpose so that you can modify as required. Let me know about any other mods. Dr.K. (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I did that. I also took out the sentence: "This, from an early review of his vocal recordings" Is this ok? Dr.K. (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also in section 1.4 there is a sentence: "As recently as 2001, one music critic wrote:[51]" But nothing comes after that. Can you fix this? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I kept the "As recently..." sentence because I added that it was included in the lost masterpieces list. Is that ok? Dr.K. (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure either. I'll try to convert some of the footnotes to what he suggested but it may take some time. I hope Anger 22 gives us a hint or two about the status of the article before too long. I think as it stands now is much improved over any other version I remember. Take care for now slp and I'm sure we'll talk again. Dr.K. (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much slp for your nice offer. I am very surprised by it and it is very kind of you. I'll activate my email on my user page. Go to my user page and on the left margin go to "toolbox" and click "email user" to send me an email. I'll then reply. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article class 

message: I did some heavy cleanup here. I don't think the section titles should have years in them, removed those. I made awards, and guitar style level 2 headers, and added tables to awards. I changed the formatting of the discography and did some heavy grammar/ redundancy edits to the entire article. Some of the references are still not formatted correctly but I fixed those as I saw them, although they were not my main focus. Washburnmav (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I promoted this article to Good status as I believe it satisfies those criterion. If you believe any of my edits are incorrect feel free to change it and let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Washburnmav (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. Thank you slp. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly. Thanks for all the work you've done prior and on top of me. Just look at where it started :O. Amazing. Washburnmav (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing indeed. But also unusually enjoyable. It doesn't happen very often that one meets collaborators of this calibre. It's been a real pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Done slp. My pleasure as always. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done it Slp. I also informed Be Black Hole Sun to tag the next section(s). Glad to see you back. Take care for now and see you soon. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. Pleasure as always. Take care Slp. Dr.K. (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Status

message: :This review is transcluded from Talk:No Doubt (No Doubt album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Sorry. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the report but I'm surprised about the fail on the citations. I thought, if nothing else, it was fully cited. Can there be a clarification as to reasons of the citation fail? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that much of the article is missing sources to verify the different statements. But if you fix this its ready to become a GA. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much Be Black Hole Sun. Is it possible you could put a few  tags here and there so we can try to fix this? Or do you think the problem is so big it needs them everywhere? Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll do that. And can someone move his discography to a seperate page under the name Lonnie Mack discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Forgott something, Lonnie Mack's homepage/fanpage is not considered a reliable source. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. I'll do the discography. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Give the references titles not http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p+amg&sql+11:aifexq951d0e!T1. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Tagged the  on the first section, will continoue when you've finished adding sources to that one. :)
 
And use that template for all the references okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Slp512 has all the refs. I'll wait for him to address this and then I'll fix the citations as per your template, then we can continue. Thanks again.--Dr.K. (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I will. Thanks again for your time. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, added more fact tags. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks as always. We'll repeat the cycle with Slp's help. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Some good work has been done here recently to make the tone of this article less like an adulatory book, and more like an encyclopaedia article. The references need work though: they should be short citations verifying what's written in the body of the article, but most of them have become little bits of article in their own right, often veering into original research and POV commentary, with three or more references clustered into a single large footnote. I'll start working on this, but it will take time. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work . Thank you for taking the time. Best of the Season to you. Dr. K. 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And to you! I'm learning a lot about this amazing man as I read the references. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. As far as Lonnie Mack, I agree. He is one of the greats. Take care. Dr. K. 19:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and encyclopaedic time 

message: This article still has a significant problem with its use of sources.  Most of them read like a construction of a justification for what has been said from multiple sources, rather than simply pointing the reader towards a source that does this. Using multiple sources in one cite is not Wikipedia standard.  Some individual sources may well still act to verify what is said, but there's a lot of intervening waffle to cut through.  
Also note; a cite that simply directs the reader to another part of the article, or another Wikipedia article, does not constitute a cite.  The cite needs to direct the reader to a reliable source. Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing style