Talk:Derek and the Dominos
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Derek and the Dominos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Derek and the Dominos was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name of the band
editWhat is the origin of that name ? Why Derek and why the Dominos ?--Io Herodotus (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Read the "Concert Debut" section of the article. The different theories are in there. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Derek and the Dominos/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article. More to come. Pinging the nominator, JC7V7DC5768, and the two biggest contributors (by edit count and added text), Patman2648 JG66. —BLZ · talk 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BLZ. I did a lot of work on the article years ago, and then more in November (I think it was) and just this month. I don't want to prejudice the review in any way but I did think the nomination was somewhat optimistic, let's say. (I recently cut an entire section that was unsourced and, imo, plain trivial; as with a few points in the article body, the discography's not supported with any sources at all.) JG66 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(What follows is a comment I was typing prior to getting an edit conflict and seeing JG66's note above; it still applies, so I'll post it here anyway.)
I've started with some copyedits. Please, feel free to undo or object to any changes I make that seem iffy or wrong-headed. I added a sentence introducing Delaney and Bonnie Bramlett, since the nature of their band was a little strange to me and required going to their page for explanation. JG66 raised a possible OR concern, which is fair enough, since I didn't cite that sentence. The sentence I added is based on general information found in the lead of Delaney & Bonnie, based on my rough sizing up of who they are and how their band worked (a core duo and a backing band of various members coming in and out of the band). It may not be precisely correct but it's probably not wildly wrong, either; a source and some tightening can be done later, but I added it for the time being for structural reasons. The article needed to take a sentence to introduce who exactly they are for clarity's sake.
(OK, this next part's actually a response to JG66's note up there)
That's fair enough. I started by looking at the lead, but then figured it would make more sense to assess and read through the body first before making any critiques of the lead—after all, how can I know it's a good summary if I don't read what it's meant to summarize? But something that jumped out to me right away was that the article body seemed to be missing crucial info found in the lead, namely, a history of the band's unexpected post-breakup success. It makes a lot of sense now to hear that it's still a work-in-progress.
In light of this being an ongoing WIP, I'm happy to set aside the nomination for the time being, but commit to reviewing it sometime in the future if you notify me at my talk page when it's renominated (to avoid waiting for months). It doesn't strike me as far from GA status, exactly, but the subject matter is weighty enough that it merits a good read-through. I could also continue with an informal copyedit over the next few days, if you like, but if it's still a draft and you don't want someone mucking it up at the stage I'd understand that too. —BLZ · talk 07:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given that almost a month has passed, I've failed the GAN. I think it's well on its way to GA status, but unfortunately the biggest hurdle is comprehensiveness—it just seems like there's a lot left to write, especially about the band's post-breakup success and legacy. —BLZ · talk 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Discography
editDiscography is a little confusing. How many unique albums were issued as Derek and the Dominoes albums? "Live recordings" has 4 bullet items but "live at the Johnny Cash Show" was not an album, and then it says was "released as part of the deluxe edition of the reissue of their debut album." Maybe more directly it should say "as part of Layla 40th anniversary deluxe edition." In existing discography paragraph "Sessions for the second album, Olympic Studios, ..." we see that Crossroads box set and Layla album's 40th anniversary deluxe edition may contain "some" of the songs that are then listed. What songs are on which albums? Seems like the reissue/box set albums have unique additional music. I suggest reissue/box set albums should be listed as unique albums in the discography, so you can see for each of these albums what unique songs/tracks are in that album. Betweendust (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)