|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dead Boys article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Punk music (inactive)|
Perhaps I'm letting POV get in the way here, but I think "Sonic Reducer" is regarded as a MAJOR punk classic, as opposed to a "minor" one, as this article currently says. I'm not sure how one can quantify that sort of thing. It's on every comprehensive punk rock compilation I've ever seen, though, if that's a valid criterion. Personally I don't think it's just POV since I don't even really like most of the other Dead Boys songs.
Well I'll leave it as it is for now. Does anyone else agree that "Sonic Reducer" is regarded as a major punk classic? Note I'm not asking if YOU think it's a major punk classic, just whether it's regarded as such. :)
Sonic reducer, ain't no loser.
- I agree, I think it's a pretty important punk song and is regarded as such. It was on Sire Records' recent retrospective compilation of important songs from their history --Avwhite 22:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, its more than minor. if you search google you can see Pearl Jam covered it (no idea why). DanieldaSilva
- Um sure, there's a ton of references to this band, album and song here:  I think you could justify "punk classic" from one of the reviewers there.(Astrocloud 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
I think there legend has actally grown over the years.Thier music has aged well,much better than The Lords of The New Church.StivCa 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It says on billboard.com  that the Dead Boys are playing a gig to benefit CBGBs - is this true? How? I think the wiki entry should be updated if they've reformed somehow (sans Stiv, of course) methelfilms 07:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I Added a photo onto the page....tom-da-bomb
Fair use rationale for Image:The Dead Boys-Young Loud & Snotty (album cover).jpg
Image:The Dead Boys-Young Loud & Snotty (album cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a little feedback on the sources added by DanDavidCook in this edit. Thanks for adding references -- the sourcing in this article, overall, is really thin, so this is one of the most valuable kinds of improvements you can make.
- On a technical level, what you did is good, but there's one more step to most "elegantly" combine the multiple citations to the same source -- look closely at what I did here:  Specifically, after the first instance of the citation -- once you've created it and named it -- you can then refer back to it with a simpler format. So in this case, you can replace the 2nd and 3rd instance of the reference with this simpler text: <ref name=Punk77Website />
- In general, I think the source you have added is not especially good, in terms of Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source". This is probably a challenging thing in the punk rock topic in general, since the topic of punk rock is not exactly an area where you'd expect to find a strong emphasis on the reliability of publishers, documentation of editorial practices, etc. But Wikipedia is not all that flexible on these points. Punk77's web site does not seem to have an "about us" page on their web site, or express anything about their editorial or fact-checking practices.
I don't think point #2 is a problem in this instance, because the specific facts attributed to this source do not seem especially dubious or controversial. There is a bit of flexibility when it comes to citing straightforward facts. But overall, to substantially improve an article like this, the best thing would be to find some coverage in well established publications with visible and respectable editorial practices, and incorporate those citations into the article. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)