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 sourcedmust 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 GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Allman Brothers Band's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡05:52, 17 July 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
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 time10:20, 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]
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 time18:00, 7 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 time01:06, 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 time07:27, 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:SEEALSOSilkTork✔Tea time10:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"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 time09:42, 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]
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 time09:27, 9 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 time13:56, 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]
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 time15:04, 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 time09:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
