Talk:Blind Faith/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this; looks like solid work, should be quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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
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
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No issues
Is it stable?
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All comments addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

"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)[reply]

The record price could probably use a "present-day value" template

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the comments now, is there anything I've missed? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]