Talk:Blind Faith/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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&mdash;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
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All comments addressed, passing shortly.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All comments addressed, passing shortly.
 * 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)


 * "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)


 * 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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 <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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.


 * "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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The record price could probably use a "present-day value" template
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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 <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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 <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. is the fountain of knowledge for all things infoboxen, so I'll ask him. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back, ! The only two relevant parameters available for the infobox are current_members and past_members. The documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist 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)


 * I would really like to see citations duplicated in the lower sections, due apologies for being rather anal about it.
 * Okay <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the comments now, is there anything I've missed? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)