Talk:Balaguer Guitars

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments 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.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BRD

It's not BRRRRRR........ The 46-point checklist stuff is sheer ad-speak where the more the number, the more attractive it becomes to a prospective buyer. Anyways, it's sourced straight from Balaguer and you need to see WP:ORGIND. ∯WBG^converse 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, you sure about meeting NCORP; given that it's one of our most rigorous standards? This is sheer junk, to start with. ∯WBG^converse 19:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Player is a well respected magazine that I have read for, well decades. Although I'm primarily a Fender Telecaster man, it's nice to read up on what other instruments are being played and being used by significant musicians. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the standard of article in a well-respected magazine......... ∯WBG^converse 19:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading an issue in about 1991 which had guitar tab and sheet music for "Won't Get Fooled Again", which is where I learned to play it, except that was Guitar World; Pete Townshend had an article in Guitar Player earlier, in 1989. Still, in the late 1980s the internet was a niche academic thing, and you certainly wouldn't expect to find guitar geekery coverage on it. So we all had to make do with processed trees instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the snark in the last line. It might be very true that it used to be a top-class magazine. But, the one I linked above is spam; no respectable outfit publishes such brazen advertorial stuff. ∯WBG^converse 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. You just don't like the subject and get aggressive and upset when people write about topics you don't care about. Now run along, there's a good chap. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No; I don't like asking others about the number of FAs being written (how many have you written, by the way ?!) as an excuse to overturn valid G11s or violate WP:INTEGRITY or introduce ad-speak or not honor BRD once getting a pet topic to write upon. ∯WBG^converse 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this and this seem quite impressive. ∯WBG^converse 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

"Product Review". Bass Player. 29 (5): 22. May 2018. ISSN 1050-785X. ∯WBG^converse 20:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]