Talk:Derek and the Dominos/GA2

GA Review

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

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)