Talk:Big Whiskey & the GrooGrux King
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Proofread
[edit]Proofread this sucker if you want to protect it. Literacy level of current authors is somewhere between daycare and daycare.
p.s. Corn Bread is two words (to the guru that wrote the page)
[edit]1. 'Cornbread' is one word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cornbread
2. 'PS' is an acronym and therefore capitalised.
Why make mention that Groogrux is the first studio album since DMB's last? It's completely pointless, not to mention the fact that articles for previous DMB studio releases mention nothing similar. Jimmy Bing (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's their first album in four years. The sentence is in the lead; it's to signify how many years its been since their last album came out. --Son (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't make any difference whether or not it's in the lead. The information is redundant as it's listed in the DMB chronology in the album's infobox. Anyone who sees that and can subtract 2005 from 2009 will get the four years. --Jimmy Bing (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having the name of the article in the lead is redundant as it's listed in the album's infobox. As is the band's name. I don't see the need to fight over this, because I view it as pertinent information. The purpose of the lead is to provide summary information, and including that it's been four years since their last studio album (when it's been essentially delayed since 2007) is notable. By the way, you can find many instances where there is redundant information between an article's infobox and an article's prose. --Son (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've come here from WP:3O. To be absolutely honest this particular alteration does not seem particularly pivotal. Either way the article is accurate and makes sense. Yes, that sentence does duplicate detail in the infobox but on that rationale the lead does not need to name the band, label, or indeed the album name. The fact is that many readers do mentally 'skip' the infobox and the main text should provide a meaningful overview of the subject. On the flip side the lead section already strikes me as being somewhat cluttered - it is a collection of facts thrown together with no rhythm flowing through the text. Introducing more isolated facts simply makes that problem worse.
- I wonder here if there is room for compromise, merging the sentence into the previous one to make it less intrusive. Something along the lines of:
- It will be the band's first studio album since 2005's Stand Up and the passing of saxophonist LeRoi Moore. ...
- Happy to discuss. I'll keep this on my watchlist for the next few days. I've also noted that the reference style is inconsistent throughout the article. The Manual of Style recommends that when a footnote and punctuation are together, it should go punctuation-footnote, not the the other way around. I'll sort that out now. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
- I agree that the lead is very cluttered with information, and needs clarification in that regard. I think merging the two sentences would be the best idea. Thanks for the fixes to the references. It's been a while since I've drafted full-on prose with references....for the last year or so it's been mostly small edits and such. Thanks for your assistance! --Son (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've just made a slight tweak to that sentence. Looking at it again I can see that it is potentially ambiguous, implying that Moore died during the production of Stand Up. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
{{editsemiprotected}}Need to add that the first single off the album has been made available through download on their website, titled, "Funny how it is". Date April 15th, 2009.
- I've just made a slight tweak to that sentence. Looking at it again I can see that it is potentially ambiguous, implying that Moore died during the production of Stand Up. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
- I agree that the lead is very cluttered with information, and needs clarification in that regard. I think merging the two sentences would be the best idea. Thanks for the fixes to the references. It's been a while since I've drafted full-on prose with references....for the last year or so it's been mostly small edits and such. Thanks for your assistance! --Son (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having the name of the article in the lead is redundant as it's listed in the album's infobox. As is the band's name. I don't see the need to fight over this, because I view it as pertinent information. The purpose of the lead is to provide summary information, and including that it's been four years since their last studio album (when it's been essentially delayed since 2007) is notable. By the way, you can find many instances where there is redundant information between an article's infobox and an article's prose. --Son (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't make any difference whether or not it's in the lead. The information is redundant as it's listed in the DMB chronology in the album's infobox. Anyone who sees that and can subtract 2005 from 2009 will get the four years. --Jimmy Bing (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tracklist reveals
[edit]Is it really necessary to chronicle each song title as it was revealed in the media? We know them all now, the tracklisting is official. If anything we could cite one main source for the tracklisting, the other sources don't seem necessary anymore. Anyone agree? Nexxia (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. It was sorta useful as the tracks were released, but not anymore. Could probably just cite the store and be done w/ it. Darry2385 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed as well. Totally useless information at this point. dancheatham (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)