Talk:Lonnie Mack

Response to WebHamster

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)

Lead in section

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)

POV clean

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)

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)

slp512 here again. Many thanks for pointing out the specific problem. As I understand it, there are two objections.

(1) First, the use of the word "influential" to describe Mack's work as a guitarist. Without going back to count them, there must be at least 10 cited and quoted references in the article which substantiate the use of this adjective.

(2) The words "has been dubbed...[the first guitar hero, first virtuoso, etc.]" in the earlier version. This is factually correct. Blues Producer Bruce Iglauer used those exact words in an article published by Gibson Guitars, which article is cited in one of the footnotes. In quoting Iglauer from the same interview in the body of the article, I believe I left those words out both for economy of expression and because they are arguably puffery and debatable in any event. That is why, when referring to the fact that Mack had been so "dubbed", I added the reference to guitarists Eddy, Dale, etc., each of whom could make similar "highly subjective" claims.

All that said, I don't have a huge problem with the article as it presently appears, including the word "perhaps", if that's what it takes to get the "scarlet letter" removed pronto.

Thanks to all.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to "POV Clean"

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)

Further Response to POV Clean

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)

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)

slp512 here again. Thanks, Dr. K. What annoys me is that I made a point of saying that the "first guitar hero" title was "highly subjective" and could be claimed with equal authority by four other named guitarists, not just Lonnie Mack. Then I get dinged for NOT saying that Mack was only "perhaps" the "first guitar hero". Did I not say that in a different, and much more factually explicit, way? As noted earlier, I have no problem with EITHER formulation, so long as everyone else is satisfied; I'd just like the scarlet letter removed.

One further comment: I've tried to be factually accurate throughout this project, and when in doubt have gone to the ultimate source, LM himself. Two examples: (a) Numerous write-ups (many of which are available deep on the internet) say that Mack played as a session guitarist during the 1960s with James Brown, Hank Ballard and Freddie King. I was able, through independent research, to substantiate King and Brown, but not Ballard. Ultimately, I called LM, who told me that he never backed up Ballard, although he recorded several Ballard tunes during the '60s. So, unlike most available sources, this article does not make the claim that LM backed up Ballard on any recording, even though I could have cited the other articles as substantiation that he had done so, and, frankly, no one would have been the wiser. (b) In the article, I quote LM as having said that blues and country are "about the closest musics there are", and that he regards both as "earth music". These are direct quotes from an article in one of the guitar magazines from the mid-1970's. However, my hard copy of that article does not indicate WHICH magazine it was. So, I called LM and confirmed the accuracy of the quote before putting it in the article, where it appears without a footnote, since, again, I can't tell which magazine it was.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying I have tried very hard to be factually accurate in this article, and to provide a wealth of third-party material on matters which might appear to others as POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

slp512 here. Thanks for these constructive comments. I've already gone back to clean up some of this sort of thing, and now having read this will go back again. Obviously, if you still feel that there is too much POV, feel free to take a crack at fixing it yourself, too.

regards, slp512

First Rock Guitarist to use a five-note blues scale?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello to all. slp512 here. I'm in a rush so will respond quickly then hopefully get back to this later.

"First rock guitar solo....[to be base on blues scale]" So says Pinell, Ph. D., and I have quoted him at least twice. There seems to be a definitional problem here. If you include people like Elmore James and even Bo Diddley, you are venturing back more into the blues, or (in Diddley's case) R&B. As to the great Chuck Berry, there is no doubt he was a rock performer in every sense. There is also no doubt that while he is responsible for many standard rock guitar riffs, he never distinguished himself as a full-length guitar soloist, certainly not in the sense which defines "blues-rock", i.e., the genre ushered to maturity by the likes of Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, and, much later, Stevie Ray Vaughan. I would include Hendrix here, as well, although he is considered by many to be either sui generis or an exponent of "psychedelic rock" guitar.

Before reading these latest comments, I went back to tone down what others might regard as POV in about 10 different places in the article.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work....is it time for a vote on the scarlet letter, or does it stay there indefinitely? I'd be sad to delete the article, but if it keeps offending folks who Wikipedia has seen fit to bestow with editorial control, this article either has to disappear, or (hopefully!) satisfy those who have taken offense, pretty soon. I don't know that I, personally, can ratchet this thing back a whole lot more.

As always, thanks to all.

slp512`````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm back sooner than I anticipated.

Anyone who is offended by Pinnell's claim is welcome to take a crack at fixing it. I've already done what I can without violating what I view as the truth of the matter. I will say that Pinnell (whose article is not available on-line, but can be accessed at most big-city central libraries) was careful to say that he was talking about the first "rock" or "rock and roll" guitar solo whose melody was based upon the blues scale, by which one thing is clear and another less clear.

What is clear from context: He was referring to a full-length guitar solo, as distinguished from, e.g., fill riffs.

What is not entirely clear: His definition of "rock" or "rock and roll". However, giving the man some credit for knowing what he was talking about, my inference is that he was referring to something distinctly "rock", as distinguished from a blues or R&B tune with the volume turned up. In his article, he refers to a few things that appear to have been significant to him in this regard, including (as I recall) the rhythm, the picking techniques and the arrangement, generally. However, his article does not expressly say anything to the effect of "Oh, by the way, here's what I mean when I use the terms 'rock' and 'rock & roll'". My own view is that Elmore James and Big Joe Turner were not "rock" musicians in the sense I infer Pinell to have used the term. Bo Diddley certainly comes closer, especially in the highly inclusive sense now used by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But that evidently is not what Pinnell had in mind.

OK, not that anyone needs my permission, but as far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to take a crack at fixing what they view as inaccurate or offensive can take their shot at the article itself.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.211.131 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

slp512 again. OK, folks, I've gone back to neutralize the offending sections as best I can without stating a falsehood. Please read carefully and let me know what you think. I'll be absent for a couple of weeks, beginning now, but will check in again when I return.

slp512

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. I couldn't leave without doing another spate of "tone-down" edits, which I hope will prove satisfactory even to those who have been most critical. I will not have time to add the citations noted near the end of the article for a week or so, however. In the interim, if anyone else has suggestions, or feels that other references in the article need citations, hopefully that input can be given in my absence. The computer on which much of my reference material was stored crashed recently, but I still have at least 90% of the reference material in hard copy, so I am that it includes (or that I can find again, if necessary) citations for most if not all of the areas marked as needing citations.

Thanks to all in advance.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp512 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have finished checking the article. In my opinion the POV level is low now and the POV tag can be removed. I placed citations needed tags so that the narrative can be strengthened by inline citations. Providing the citations will greatly improve the overall quality of this already fine article. Dr.K. (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

slp512 checking in again. Thanks much, Dr. K. I see I got a little testy a couple of times in my earlier comments, for which I apologize. I concur that this is now a much better article for an encyclopedia than it once was, and that I got carried away at times out of personal feelings. I don't have my background material available here, but checked it quickly last night and confirmed that I can back up most of the "citations needed" tags with what I still have in hard copy. There are some I can't, at least without further research. I'll mention them here in case any of the editors have ideas re how to deal with them.

1. Reference to "Chicken-Pickin'" as LM's most technically-challenging guitar solo. Anyone who has heard LM's guitar work knows this to be true, at least as respects picking speed. But I can't recall an external reference for this, which admittedly states a proposition in the form of an opinion. Suggestions?

2. Under the heading "Blue-Eyed Soul Ballads" the first two "citation needed" tags come after what I view as fair, and reasonably non-controversial comments that are manifestly inferable not just from listening to the music, but from material quoted in the same section, plus material which I haven't cited, but can cite, from the contemporary reviews of LM's first album. However, none of those, as I recall, state it precisely as I have. Too much POV? Change of wording needed to conform more closely to material cited/to be cited?

3. "Many regard (attribution needed) [Mack's guitar solos to have been the first to comprehensively incorporate blues stylism into rock]". I can provide cites to articles whose authors undoubtedly agree, but who arguably have expressed themselves somewhat differently. In fact, look at the boxed quotes from Bruce Iglauer, Ben Sandmel and Brown & Newquist in the same section of the article. Close enough?

4. Under the heading "Elektra Years", the comparisons with Buck Owens, Sam & Dave and Wilson Pickett, singers whose styles and voices are quite distinctive, and therefore innately provide data points from which comparisons can be made. While passages in question are my comments entirely, based upon listening to the recordings, I view them as much closer to the assertion that "bananas are softer than coconuts" than the assertion that "Pork tastes better than beef". The latter is a manifestly personal, highly subjective opinion, while "bananas are softer than coconuts", although similarly phrased as a comparison of qualitative features, is an easily-verifiable observation made from the speaker's personal experience, and upon verification, unlikely to result in substantial disagreement. Bottom line: I'm not sure how to "fix" this, assuming you think it still needs fixing, unless I can dig up old articles I have not yet found, and they just happen to say these things. Not likely. Any suggestions?

5. The two quotes beginning with blues and country being "about the closest musics there are" and ending with "earth music". As indicated in an earlier comment, I have an article from the '70s which expressly quotes Mack as haing said both of these things, but when I copied the article at the Los Angeles Public Library, I did not notice that the pages I copied failed to identify either the author or the publication. All I know for certain is that it was a popular music magazine, almost certainly one of the guitar-oriented ones, and that it was written in the 1970s, which I get from context. I can fax a hard copy of the article if you will provide a fax number. As indicated in my earlier comment, I independently verified the accuracy of the quotes from the article directly with Lonnie Mack. Any thoughts?

OK, I think I can handle the rest without bothering you good folks, but if you can give me some feedback on the above, I can be ready to hit the ground running with all of the "citation needed" tags in a week or so.

Thanks again.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.211.131 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wow, thanks, I appreciate the comments. I forgot to mention: a tag above states the article needs more photos, although thanks to webhamster it already has 3 album covers. Mack's website has several great photos, but knowing him as I do, he won't know where they came from, who snapped them, whether they are copyrighted, or whether he has the authority to make it legally OK to use them in another on-line publication. Neither do I. Any thoughts? Also, I will be visiting him in 3 weeks and can take some photos that won't have any of these problems, since they will be coming from me with his consent. I have in mind a photo of him with the "V" and one of his '50s-era Magnatone amps. Any other ideas? Finally, importation of any photos into the article is way beyond my technical expertise, as is almost anything having to do with computers. If you'd be so kind, I'd like to have you take charge of that. Thanks again.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.211.131 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

OK, will do, and thanks again.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.211.131 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a good trip. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Back again, with final edits

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)

Calling Dr. K

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)

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)

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)

Citations/references/photos

No problem with the edits, Dr. K. Your objectivity is much appreciated.

I think I've now provided all the reference citaitons I can find. I deleted a bit of material along the way due to some material lost when my hard-drive crashed, but it doesn't seem to have harmed the article materially.

There are still 10 references in the body of the article which need to be reduced to footnotes. All are in italics, in these locations:

Section 1.3, first paragraph; fourth paragraph (twice) Section 1.4, in the para. before the final blocked quote, and also in the final paragraph. Section 1.5, first and second paragraphs. Section 1.9, paragraph before the final blocked quoted. Section 1.10, first paragraph. Section 1.12, second para.

For photos, it is my understanding that anything which credits the photographer is fair game. If my understanding is correct, there are many photos on Mack's website, http://www.lonniemack.com which could be used. Also, that website has a link to his "MySpace" page, which has even more photos. My personal favorites would be the professional black & white photo depicting Mack sitting in a high-backed chair with his guitar, and a relatively recent color photo showing him holding an acoustic guitar, and standing in front of a wood-panelled wall. Both are on the MySpace page under the link to photos. But you can choose whatever you think is appropriate.

Many thanks.

slp512

Thanks slp for your kind words. I didn't see the missing refs. I'll check them out. Unfortunately about using the pics giving credit

to the photographer is not enough. It must be a freely licensed picture under the GFDL, for example. Anyway I'll try to see. Talk to you later. It's been fun and a pleasure working with you. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional question: The following sentences need citation for verification. Are there any citations that you may have slp?

Mack felt the same way, and found that he played his best when challenged by Vaughan's skill.[citation needed] He also benefitted from Vaughan's kindness and friendship: When Mack was stricken with a serious illness, Vaughan put on a benefit concert to pay for Mack's medical bills.[citation needed] ....Vaughan's live performances throughout the '80s customarily included "Wham!"[citation needed]

Let me know. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. K, to look at the photos on myspace you need a myspace ID. Sorry about that. A link to some picutre is: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=134716769&albumId=590072

If you can't use them, let me know, and I'll see if Mack has any that can be used. I figured that since these were on his myspace page and already credit photographers, they would be fair game, but I'll leave that to your knowledge of how that works.

As to the 3 additional factual references, I think I have references to all 3. I'll look, and update the article accordingly.

slp512

Many thanks for the citations. My apologies if I put you to additional work but I am trying to make the article as challenge-proof as possible. As far as the pics the most likely to be free are from Flickr. I don't know about the copyright status of pics on My space but I'll check. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More pix:

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=134716769&albumId=590072

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=134716769&albumId=1307089

The pix I have referred you to are all on his myspace page, but if you can't get to them without a myspace login, let me know. I know his webmaster, if that would help in getting permission to use any photos.

And, no problem re the additional cites, if I can find them, I'll put them where they belong.

slp512

I can't get to the pictures because I don't have a login. If you can ask the webmaster if he could release a few pics under the GFDL such as this pic: Image:Dionysos Vacchos pediment at the Museum of Corfu.JPG, it would be ok. Dr.K. (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to that soon.

Meanwhile there are four new references that need to go into footnotes, one under the "Significance of LM's instrumentals" heading and three under the "Comeback Decade" heading. Under the latter, I had to delete some material which I apparently found in one or both of the full-length bio books on SRV I borrowed from the LA Public Library a couple of years ago. Don't have the books now. So I substituted with new material of equivalent import, for which I still had the reference material.

slp512

Refs done. Dr.K. (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Three new refs today. I see you've already found one. The other two are found in the section pertaining to awards in 2005 and 2006.

slp512

Done. Dr.K. (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To Dr. K re photo

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)

I've already contacted an administrator. Let's see what she says. Dr.K. (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr K, I've posed your question to Russ, and am awaiting a response.

slp512

Great. Thanks slp. Let's wait then. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you wish to upload the photo, the best thing to do is go to the upload page on Wikimedia Commons, upload the photo, fill in a description, and add a license, such as GFDL. Then add the template {{otrs pending}} to the image. After this, ask your friend to fill in an agreement such as commons:User:Riana/statement. Once he has done this, ask him to e-mail it to permissions@wikimedia.org . An OTRS agent should be able to take care of it ASAP. Hope that helps, if not, please feel free to ask. Cheers! ~ Riana ⁂ 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Riana/Dr. K: I've asked Russ House, the photographer, to read your instructions and take over from this point. He has already indicated he will grant the license.

slp512

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)

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)

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)

Update to Dr. K

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)

Three new references in introduction. I recalled that Wikipedia requires these in the intro, not just the body.

Thanks again!

slp512

Done. My pleasure. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. K, I saw your call for two more citations in the section entitled "Significance...." and that caused me to re-read it. I concluded it was too long and redundant, so I shortened it considerably, although I added a new quote at the beginning of that section. I'd appreciate it if you'd reduce the citation there to a footnote. Unless asked for more, I'm now done with the footnotes.

slp512

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)

Tags are not a problem at all. Some of them are a bit of a challenge, however. There are things I know to be true from my association with Mack and his managers, and/or just from having lived on the planet for 60 years, and/or maybe from having read it somewhere, sometime. But trying to find an outside reference is another matter entirely. For instance, I just deleted a couple of sentences about Berry speeding up his own performance of "Memphis" and he and Mack ending up friends and touring partners. I know these things to be true, but I'll never find something that says they are, so they're out. Likewise, I know that Mack put on a benefit concert to raise money for Berry's bail when Berry ran afoul of the law and ended up in the slammer, but I'll never find anything that says that either, so it never went into the article. And I know a very interesting story about a time in the late '60s when Mack put together a late-night jam session in Greenwich Village with Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Garcia and Janis Joplin, and coaxed Hendrix into playing country guitar, while he and Joplin sang and Garcia played pedal steel. But I'll never find anything that says that happened, either. My problem is that I know too many things that aren't "out there", and in my zeal I end up mixing them with the stuff that is. So it ends up having to be fixed. Luckily for me, I've had your kind assistance in showing me where I've left the track.

And that's OK. If I wanted free reign over this article I could have written it for some other publication that didn't care as much about documentation. I share your goal of trying to make this article as compliant with Wikipedia requirements as possible. Your editorial assistance has been invaluable. I'll let you scour it for further needed citations, edits, etc., then I'll get back to it again in a few days. Everything comes to an end sooner or later, and I sense this project is a lot closer to the end than the beginning.

slp512

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)

Good tradeoff, I agree.

Dr. K, I see that you've reduced most of my latest references to footnotes. There is still one under the heading "Career", 3d para, and another under the heading "1963: "Memphis"...", 4th para. Coindicentally, I think that gets us to exactly 100 footnotes. Again, if you think anything in the article needs to be fixed, or more footnotes added, I'll trust your judgment.

Regards,

slp512

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)

Thanks for the kudos. It looks like we were working on the article at the same time, and you got one even as I was pointing them out. So they're all taken care of now. Thanks!

slp512

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)

Two more footnotes in "Comeback" section, 3d paragraph, the para about Eric Clapton. Thanks much.

slp512

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

Dr. K, I added a quote in the 4th para of the section entitled, "1964: The Wham of that Memphis Man". This should be a boxed quote. Also added another reference in the section "1980s: Comeback Decade", 3d para. If you would add the footnotes and do the boxed quote, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

slp512

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

Question

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)

Thanks slp. Just finished two more citations. Dr.K. (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. K. There is a new paragraph quoting the lyrics of a tune in the section entitled "1970s...". It now appears as the 6th para. It should be a boxed quote in order to conform to the format for song lyrics used elsewhere in the article. There is also a new reference at the very end of the section entitled "1980s....". That one needs to be reduced to a footnote. I'd appreciate it if you would do those for me.

I don't plan on any significant revisions at this point. I am trying to find a copy of one of his albums to determine if it merits comment. I am also trying to find out about session work he did with Joe Simon which does not appear in anything written about him that I have found. If Mack is credited on Simon albums themselves, I may mention that session work.

As always, thanks for your assistance.

slp512

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)

Hi Dr. K,

Can you make that new boxed quote match the appearance of the other one just below it (another recital of lyrics from a song)? I tried to copy the way that other one was done, but I don't have a vertical line on my keyboard, and it apparently requires that. Thanks, much!

slp512

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

Article class

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)

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)

Slp512 here. I have recently returned to this article after a long time away. I cleaned up a few minor areas in the last several days.

With some trepidation, I will say that further editing of the article to improve it from Wiki's standpoint should probably be done by others. I am a personal friend of Mack's and found it exceedingly difficult earlier in the process to separate out my own POV from the facts, although I ultimately succeeded to the point that the complaints dried up considerably. As to the many quotes, I was driven to include as much material as I could, first, because my own POV was prohibited, and, secondly, because (to my knowledge) there is no comprehensive article on Mack, anywhere. The closest I have found is the recent Gibson Lifestyle article I have footnoted several times. As to formatting, and especially the computer expertise necessary to do it, I am at a complete loss, and had to rely heavily on Dr. K and others, who were helpful in many ways. Finally, this is my first effort at writing an article, and I am sure there are others who are better at it.

For all these reasons, I think it best for others to make any further changes to the article.

Thanks to all.........

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.181.34 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

slp512: Thanks, Dr. K, I'll do as you've suggested.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.181.34 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. See you around. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

slp512: Dr. K, Of the 6 consecutive boxed quotes in section 1.6, I'd like to retain the Brown & Newquist and Sandmel quotes. The other 4 could be referenced in a related footnote.

Under section 1.4, the second boxed quote should be kept. The other two could be swept into footnoted material.

That would eliminate 6 boxed quotes from the body of the article.

Section 1.10: The first two sentences of the third para could be retained, but with a period at the end of the second sentence, to be followed by antoher sentence: According to the lyrics of a tune from the mid-'70s, Mack yearned for the simple, anonymous country life of his youth. [footnote here to the song referenced in the second boxed quote]. In a 1977 interview, Mack added: [the first boxed quote follows here].

That would eliminate one boxed quote from the body of section 1.10.

All of the foregoing would result in elimination of 7 boxed quotes. I'd still like to keep that material in the footnotes if at all possible. As I said yesterday, this is the most comprehensive factual article about Mack's career to be found anywhere, and by far the most comprehensive collection of what others have said about it.

After all of that is done, I'll have to go in and modify the text in some areas from which those quotes have been deleted. When that's done, let's take another look at it.

Thanks much, my friend.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.181.34 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Done. There are a couple of endings that have to be filled in, such as a sentence ending in: wrote: 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)

References

• • • That's great. For some reason, I can't modify the section in 1.4 which you spotlighted without messing up the footnote numbers. I suggest that the footnote reference (43) come right after the second sentence, and that the third sentence ("Fifteen years....") be changed to read: "According to one critic:" and that it simply follow as the third sentence of the first paragraph. If you could make those simple changes, that would be great. I made a couple of others. With these changes, I'd invite your suggestions as to how the article might be streamlined futher, if you think more is needed.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.181.34 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• • • Your removal of "This, from...." is fine. I tried to remove the sentence in 1.4 beginning with "As recently...", but on the preview it changed the footnote numbering radically. Please go ahead and make that correction. I'd recommend that you keep the footnote reference which follows that sentence, however.

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.181.34 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• • • Perfect! I guess that gets us to the point where I need objective guidance regarding any further changes, because I feel good about it "as is". Also, Anger 22 had a comment about conforming the footnotes to formatting conventions. Not sure if he was offering to do that....

slp512 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.181.34 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• • • Sounds good. By the way, I was surprised to read that you were unfamiliar with the genre, which I suppose means that you were unfamiliar with Mack as well. I'd be delighted to send you a compilation of some of his best and/or most representative stuff. Let me know. I could give you my email, you could immediately erase it and send me your contact info by email.

slp512

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)

Cleanup

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)

Good Status

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)

Thanks for your involvement, Washburnmav. I did go back to add some chronological context in a couple of places where it had been lost in the process of streamlining and re-formatting the article. Other than that, the edits are terrific. Thanks to all of the experienced editors whose professionalism and teamwork have greatly improved this article. Slp512 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Thank you slp. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dr. K: I found a couple of typos and fixed them. Also, in a couple of places, added back a few words of text where the meaning had been lost to the edits. Finally, in the section "Memphis, Wham and the birth of blues-rock guitar", I added back some material which I have placed in parentheses so that you can easily find it (in 3d paragraph). I would appreciate it if you would reduce that parenthetical material to a footnote. It took a long time for me to nail down that fact, and I wouldn't want it to be questioned in the future for the lack of a reference. Thanks much. Slp512 (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done slp. My pleasure as always. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added footnote references where requested. Dr. K., as of this writing (you may be in the document now) there are footnote references in the first, fourth and fifth paras. of the releveant section that still need to be put in proper form. I wonder if I could prevail on you to do that? Thanks in advance. Slp512 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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))

Dr. K, I also added another footnote at the fifth paragraph of "Career". Thanks much!Slp512 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Sorry. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you very much Be Black Hole Sun. Is it possible you could put a few {{fact}} 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)

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)

Forgott something, Lonnie Mack's homepage/fanpage is not considered a reliable source. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll do the discography. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Tagged the {{fact}} on the first section, will continoue when you've finished adding sources to that one. :)

<ref name="">{{cite web
| url=
| title=
| publisher=
| accessdate=}}</ref>

And use that template for all the references okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Okay. Contact me when your finished. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will. Thanks again for your time. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job, added more fact tags. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I have finished my edits to this point, and have streamlined the article a bit in places.75.22.60.10 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

References and encyclopaedic time

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)

Great work The Mighty Glen. Thank you for taking the time. Best of the Season to you. Dr. K. 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Citing style

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)