Talk:The Rip Chords

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rip Chords article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 16 June 2013 by reviewer APerson241 (talk · contribs).

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-objective tone of article

I've read through about half of this article and am struck by the inappropriate tone in many instances. I'm not completely up on Wikipedia's requirements, but I am fairly certain the general tone of articles should be fitting for an encyclopedia article, not a fan magazine. It seems to me that this should be addressed. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@THX1136: Yes, you're definitely correct. A few months ago, I went through and removed the worst of it. It could probably stand to be rewritten from scratch, but I don't know enough about topic. Vast sections of this article could probably be deleted without any issues, as it's poorly sourced and written like a fan site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have bumped into more original research oriented stuff and still haven't made it through the whole article. I am reluctant to remove whole sections - the one on "Hey, Little Cobra" comes to mind - as I am also not completely conversant on the group. It appears that many citations are taken from an unpublished interview with one of the principals. Rewriting from scratch seems a bit extreme, but in light of the articles tone that may be a best course of action. Any other thoughts out there?THX1136 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major updates and fixes done

I fixed the complaints mentioned in the box at the top of the page. Extensive editing was done to remove personal opinion and address the tone of the overall article. Most sections were shortened to make it crisper. Sentences were rewritten to remove any personal opinion. Footnotes were added.

My request is for someone to review the hours of work I've done, and remove the warning box at the top of the page if you agree this is now acceptable. Thank you for the time and effort to close this issue. TL001 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes completed

I'd like some help from a senior editor. Based on the editorial flag at the top of this article, I made substantial changes to this post last spring, and the flag is still unchanged. The article is also much shorter than when this flag was implemented. Please remove the flag if you feel all points have now been addressed. Thanks very much for your consideration!

71.198.2.112 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a fair number of issues related to the flag that need to be addressed. Things are progressing and good work has been done, but more is necessary. I would encourage you - and other editors that may be interested - to continue to add improvements with reliable 3rd party sources. What little I have contributed is inconsequential as I do not have the time to find good sources. Thank you for your work as the article has been improved by your time spent.THX1136 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Crew section

While I appreciate the contributions this group of musicians made to popular music, the section seems a bit out of place in the article. The fact that the Rip Chords were primarily a vocal group makes the WC's mention appropriate, but the detail would perhaps be better handled with the link to the page here on the Crew itself. Not a big issue. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Removed this section: "In summation: Bringas flew in from seminary to record, but he did not tour; Rich and Arnie toured, but they did not record; Phil recorded and also toured; Bruce and Terry certainly did not tour although they recorded with Phil and Ernie as ghost singers. But no one outside of the studio knew about these intrigues." as superfluous. It confuses more than helps after a clearer explanation that preceded it. I haven't done a straight read of the article so they may be more things of the same ilk that could be altered. I also changed references to the principals to their last names per Wiki guidelines. I may have missed a few, but hopefully caught them all. If anything seems inappropriate, feel free to revert.THX1136 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence as it needs a citation: "However, "Gone" did very well wherever it was played, e.g., in San Antonio, Texas, during the week of August 1, 1963 (on KTSA’s top 55 survey), "Gone" climbed up to number two, right above Elvis Presley’s song, "Devil In Disguise"." It actually contradicts the previous sentence which states the song did not do very well compared to the group's first release. I am placing it here so that when a suitable source is found it may be reinstated.THX1136 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical section

In a certain sense this section comes off as a "I've got an axe to grind" sort of thing. Some of what is presented was included in the article earlier. I appreciate the need for clarification, but I am wondering if this could be rolled into the earlier coverage - including the unique things mentioned here and omitting the duplicated items. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]