Talk:Wild Cub

Reviewing notes

1. genre?
2. I don't think MOS uses the pound/number sign for chart ranks
3. What kind of work was DeWitt in before he quit?
4. The "one of the best of 2006" -- was the film best, or the score specifically? If it's the film, I doubt this fact belongs in this article unless the citation specifically mentions the score as contributing.
5. "film and documentary" scores -- isn't a documentary a type of film? Should we say "feature film and documentary scores"? Were some of the films shorts?
6. Is the album title Youth? If so, how is the title track "Thunder Clatter"? Am I mixed up?
7. All those festivals and whatnot at the end need to be explained or linked. I'm sure it's because my favorite music is Doowop through Donna Summer, but I have no idea what all that stuff means. EEng (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope I don't come across as the bad guy, but the article was highly repetitive -- repeating the names of the members for example. I'm afraid it may be under the DYK limit now. As there's also significant duplication between the two articles I recommend merging them (and it's really more appropriate anyway, given their short length and intimate connection). They can always be split again if this group becomes the next Beatles and releases lots of notable stuff. EEng (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Fixed.
2. Just checked WP:POUND and you are correct - although to me writing "Number" reads superfluously.
3. The source doesn't say.
4. The source is very ambiguous on that.
5. Fixed.
6. Fixed - I'd confused the terms 'title track' and 'lead single'.
7. Added some links.--Launchballer 20:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

-- unsigned by Launchballer

OK good. There are some and tags in the article -- take a look. Be sure to take a look at the DYK nomination page too. EEng (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'unsigned by Launchballer'? The bloody cheek, I sign all my posts!
Anyway, I've resolved all of the tags, except one; I can't find any information about the job, only that DeWitt left it because of the cost of living.--Launchballer 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sig's being at the end of a list item somehow blinded me to it, despite it's being in yellow. EEng (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Dubious" tags

I've added a couple of "dubious" tags to the article, both of which should be fixed fairly easily.

The first was a release date of December 2013 for the first album under the second label. If this is indeed upcoming, then the wording needs to change to indicate this.

The second was the claim that the band was formed in 2012. This is cited to Bearings, which seems to indicate that the CD by Keegan and Bullock was the genesis of the band, which formed in the wake of the album with musicians from it. This is rather confusing. The AllMusic bio page has 2012 within the text, but the sidebar says 2011. The Stereoboard gives a UK release date for Youth of January 14, 2012, but this seems odd for an article which is talking about the announcement of an impending release of an album, published on November 28, 2012. If January 14, 2012 is correct, there's no way a band forms, records, and releases a CD in two weeks, which is why I tagged this as dubious. (Might it be January 2013 for the UK?)

Care needs to be taken in sorting this out; not all seemingly reliable sources get it right. As it stands now, the article needs reworking so the chronology works around the band's founding and the release of their album.

For balance, it would be nice if some facts about Bullock were added; right now, it's all about Keegan, which strikes me as undue emphasis. The Bearings article's paragraph on where the band members came should be useful for the other members. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified them and have added a bit of information on Bullock.--Launchballer 18:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bullock information comes directly from the source, and is problematic in two ways:

1. It doesn't say whether he was playing on the same bill as these groups, or as a backup musician, or what. It's very vague on details, which makes it unsuitable as a source for an article here, and the wording is inadequate in terms of notable events.
2. The information is a very close paraphrase of what's there, which is highly problematic.

So, with regret, I've had to remove it. With luck you'll be able to find something more informative, but if that's all that's out there, then Bullock will have remain without additional facts. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that better?--Launchballer 15:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, yes, except that the Paste source cited doesn't mention those bands at all that I can see. (Neither Paste ref does.) Can you please add the source citation for where you got the information from? (I was doing some editing simultaneously, and realize that after the edit conflict, I forgot to change my edit summary. Sorry about that!) About citation placement: these should always go after the punctuation (comma, period, etc.), with one exception: they go before a dash. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me started on edit summary usage - the number of good administrators that fail to provide adequate edit summaries is unbelievable. I don't even look at them any more, I just look at the edit itself. But that is another kettle of fish altogether.
Regarding Paste; I've got three different references from the same website, and I thought the new article was already used on the page so I just used <ref name="paste"/>, thinking that that was the article I had registered to that refname. That has now been fixed.--Launchballer 16:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)