Talk:The Allman Brothers Band/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 08:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets MoS. The lead is a little sparse, given the richness of detail of the main body, but it does provide a summary of the contents. Consideration could be given, as part of ongoing development, to enriching the details in the lead. There is some pinching of text between images in the Later years (1997–2014) section, but this is minor, and by itself would not prevent a GA listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of twin lead guitars in the lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really tend to prefer strict, three-paragraph leads. I understand for tons of articles it can't work, but for something like a band or song or album, I'm really into having a standard three paragraph section. All that said, I think the lead works perfectly as is. It doesn't go too far into detail early on, is short and sweet for the casual reader, and covers all the major points. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears fair and balanced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the mention of The Simpsons episode, the article is well supported by citations to reliable sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is richly detailed without going on at undue length on any aspect. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I'm not sure if the free-use rationale for File:Allman Bros 1969.jpg is sufficient. Has this been looked over by someone with experience in copyright? If not, then I think that would be needed in order for the article to be listed with that image in place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All other images are tagged appropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is, as there are comparable free images from this era; I've picked an expired copyright one on Commons from 1972, which shows the original lineup bar Duane who had died the previous year. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image from 1972 is taken from a magazine ad, which was published with no copyright notice. I have little deep experience in copyright, but at the same time, I can think of numerous reasons why a small-sized file of the original and most famous lineup of the band is fair use: two members of that lineup are deceased and it would be difficult obtaining PD images of them together, it can be used to illustrate their ages when beginning the band, it's of a small size and low quality, etc. If we can find an image definitely deemed PD/CC then I am in favor of including it. If not, I feel it is important to keep the image -- after all, this was the Allman BROTHERS band, and half the images around are from recent years. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some captions may be a little long, containing information more appropriate to the main body. See WP:Captions. It's a debatable area though. On the whole, aiming for one main piece of information seems to work - for example, the Derek Trucks image could be presented as "Derek Trucks joined in 1999 and became the band's youngest member", leaving the information about being the nephew of drummer Butch Trucks to the main body. Though a layout issue, while on images, the two images in Later years (1997–2014) are squeezing the text. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these concerns -- I agree, I tend to have a tendency for verbose captions, haha. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The song samples are well chosen to represent three distinct influences on the band's music style; however, while the songs are mentioned in the text, and the music styles the songs represent are mentioned, there isn't a direct correlation between the two, except in the captions to the samples. The caption comment may well be enough; however, I see no harm, and some benefit, from repeating the same information in the main body. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not so keen on this -- I feel it's making the musical section longer than it needs to be -- I'll concede the point, it would offer more than the captions would. I've updated the article accordingly. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section is rather long. If a link is felt to be important, then it is generally felt that mention of the topic would be made in a comprehensive article, with an appropriate link at the point of mention; and that once mentioned in the main text, there is no need to repeat in the See also section. This is not a hard and fast rule, and exceptions will apply, but ten links seems a lot. WP:SEEALSO SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, snipped it down to the most important ones. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

"where they (first) discovered music." I'm just going through the prose (which is fine), and this phrase has hit me. I removed the "first" as that is implied in the word "discovered". But then the phrase looks a bit stark, a bit empty, and also a little vague. I looked in the nearest cited source text for the original wording, and it doesn't appear there. The nearest I can find is on page 1: "It was thirteen-year-old Gregg who first brought music into the Allmans' Daytona, Florida, household when Geraldine bought him a Sears Silvertone guitar." Could we tighten that phrase up a bit? Or even drop it altogether, as the important part, that G. Allman was given a guitar, is in the very next sentence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. The most important thing is that the two brothers grew up together in Daytona, and I've tightened it up a bit to reflect that. You're right, we jump into the guitar business in the next sentence, I see no need to hop in early on that. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At some point (not a GA issue) the links to rollingstone.com need updating or supplementing with archive.org links: [1]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, will be a work in progress. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it southern rock or Southern rock? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a fun debate! I don't mind either. To me, using "southern rock," no capitalization, looks good in a sentence while the alternative doesn't. But at the same time, Southern rock seems to only refer to the Southern U.S., and I feel like it should always be capitalized. What's your say on it? I'm in favor of keeping it capitalized at each usage. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I looked at when doing background reading appeared to be mostly using Southern rock. The house style on Wikipedia is not to capitalise points of the compass, but as in this instance the Southern refers to Southern United States we would accept it as being capitalised per MOS:COMPASS, so I would support using Southern rock. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Simpson Safari" sentence really needed? And if it is, then it should be referenced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, no it isn't, that must have been something added after I left. The Simpsons has referenced a LOT of things, doesn't mean it needs to be pointed out on each page. Removed! Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the variety of members of the band, the timeline graphic used here would be useful. (Would be even better if such a graph could employ clickable links). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the timeline you mentioned to the article. I have little experience with timelines, so I am not one for adding clickable links -- someone else can hah. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

This is a very fine article. I have quibbles over the copyright status of the lead image, and if all the captions are appropriately concise; other than that, the article meets GA criteria. Putting on hold for these minor issues to be addressed. Points for ongoing development are raised above - in particular there are some web links that need updating, and the lead would benefit from enriching to a commensurate level with the main body. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review again SilkTork. I've addressed all your concerns though I'm sure discussion of the lead image will continue. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking the folks at the official website if they have an image they'd be willing to let you use under an appropriate licence. Anyway, for now, I'm listing. Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]