Talk:Blind Faith/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Vanamonde93 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this; looks like solid work, should be quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Checklist edit
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- All concerns addressed
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- All concerns addressed
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Refs appropriately formatted.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- All sources seem solid, nice work.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Spotchecks are fine; one source link appears to be broken, but it's uncontroversial stuff so I'll leave it for you to fix later.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool flags people copying from Wikipedia
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- No issues
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Image license checks out, so far as I can tell. I imagine there's images of the four members available, which could be added; but that's just a suggestion, not a GA issue since the main image is present.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All comments addressed, passing shortly.
- Pass or Fail:
Comments edit
"At one point, the pair thought they might record with Duck Dunn and Al Jackson Jr., the rhythm section of Booker T. & the M.G.'s, though the music press hoped that Clapton would form a band that would outdo Cream"
The "though" here seems to connect pieces that don't really contradict each other; I would suggest breaking this into two sentences.
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"Cream-like" super-stardom situation
I know what you mean (and it made me chuckle) but it strikes me as a little colloquial.
- Reworded; though "independently notable" sounds like WikiSpeak (though I suppose it's relevant here; Clapton wanted a band, not just a collection of separately famous people playing obliviously to each other) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- How about the wordier but maybe clearer "band whose members had large reputations individually"? Your solution works too, though.
- Hmm, I prefer this suggestion here, so let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- How about the wordier but maybe clearer "band whose members had large reputations individually"? Your solution works too, though.
- Reworded; though "independently notable" sounds like WikiSpeak (though I suppose it's relevant here; Clapton wanted a band, not just a collection of separately famous people playing obliviously to each other) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Traffic is described as being on hiatus in one paragraph, and dead ("demise") in the next; I suppose either term could be used, but it jars a little bit.
- I've taken out the start of the sentence "Following the demise of". It's obvious from the prose that the decision to form a group came while the pair were at a loose end. Without looking back, I think Winwood's biography says he wasn't keen to formally break up Traffic as the other group members were his friends. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do we have the date of the promo release?
- I haven't been able to find one. It was undoubtedly pressed on a date, but since copies were shipped out individually, it may have been spread over some time, making an individual release date impossible to actually identify. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- That sentence is a touch confusing; I would suggest something in "On [date], Island released a promotional track for the recording label announcing that they were moving office. Titled "Change Of Address From 23 June 1969", the one-sided promo featured an instrumental jam by Blind Faith..."
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it wouldn't hurt to make it explicit that Blind Faith was the group's first album.
- Whereabouts were you looking at? It was their only album (barring a live retrospective released decades later). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I mean something like this; rv if you don't like it and we'll figure it out. It's more for flow than clarity, I guess.
- Whereabouts were you looking at? It was their only album (barring a live retrospective released decades later). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"back catalogues. both Atlantic Records (...) and for Clapton and Baker (...)."
Something is missing there, and it's not just the capitalization...
- Looks like I started removing / copyediting something, got distracted, and saved it half-done. Anyway, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- The record price could probably use a "present-day value" template
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"which the audience were unfamiliar with"
"unfamiliar" seems a little weak; "were surprised by" or something would be more natural, I think
- I've gone with "did not know well". Since the album had been only out a few weeks, diehard fans might have become familiar with the material but nowhere near as much as older Cream and Traffic stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"as had been the case in Cream"
maybe this is just me, but it's unclear whether he had jammed with Cream, or if he hadn't.
- I've reworded it. Cream were one of the first bands to stretch out a song to more than double its length, before groups like Led Zeppelin really started to take the piss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"their older, popular material"
I'd suggest "the older, popular material", and to "the new Blind Faith material"
- Tweaked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"Clapton was now exactly where he didn't want to be"
Since this isn't literal, I find it a little colloquial.
- Reworded. The basic gist is that Clapton just wanted to sit down and write songs with Winwood, and maybe put them on a solo or duo album, not touring round the US playing loud rock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Moving to the lead; I'm told it's an ENGVAR thing to refer to a band as "they" rather than "it". If that's the case, though, shouldn't it also be "the band were", rather than "was"?
- It is, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- That girl on the album cover...in one place you say "pubescent", in another "prepubescent". It strikes me that you could say "Eleven-year-old" and avoid the problem, and also possibly be a little clearer
- That works for me. I can't imagine that a cover like that would get released today, and I would describe it as "unfortunate" in retrospect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd suggest breaking paragraphs after "banned in the United States", and starting the next with "Blind Faith played"
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"They continued to tour Scandinavia"
a little confusing, because they weren't on tour at that point, right? Also, Hyde Park isn't in Scandinavia, but it could be read that way. Why not simply "they toured"?
- I see what you mean. I've reworded it a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"Delaney & Bonnie, and they split up"
The "they" is ambiguous- I despise one-sentence paragraphs, and would much prefer the last lead sentence be combined into the previous paragraph, but I won't insist on it.
- See above. IIRC it was longer but I condensed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- In the infobox, is "past members" the right parameter? It's not like they have present members...
- I can't remember. RexxS is the fountain of knowledge for all things infoboxen, so I'll ask him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Good to see you back, Ritchie! The only two relevant parameters available for the infobox are
|current_members=
and|past_members=
. The documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist #past_members states:"If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field."
The article reflects current practice as documented. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Good to see you back, Ritchie! The only two relevant parameters available for the infobox are
- I can't remember. RexxS is the fountain of knowledge for all things infoboxen, so I'll ask him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I would really like to see citations duplicated in the lower sections, due apologies for being rather anal about it.
- Okay Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all the comments now, is there anything I've missed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: The AllMusic ref for "awards", ref 14, seems to be pointing elsewhere now. It's a minor point, though, so I'll leave you to fix it at your leisure. Passing this now, nice work; I enjoyed reading it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)