Talk:Los Saicos

Opinion
The article is full of opinion, and totally devoid of reliable sources. It should be the other way round. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article is actually pretty good. It could certainly be improved, and it would definitely be better with some footnoted references, but it doesn't seem to be as POV laden as the previous comment suggests. I've added some links to official websites and also a link to an article from The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.241.222 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

this article begins with a sentence fragment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.244.241 (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now made major changes to the text and format of the article. In addition to being much better sourced, the article is now significantly more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, as well as way more accurate and informative.  I have removed unsourced statements that were either spurious or unnecessary and added helpful sourced details.  There are still a few places that need to have citations/sources inserted.  However, to my best judgment, everything now said here is accurate and verifiable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Los Saicos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110227024805/http://elcomercio.pe:80/impresa/notas/noche-salvaje-rocanrol/20110221/716749 to http://elcomercio.pe/impresa/notas/noche-salvaje-rocanrol/20110221/716749

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)