Template:Did you know nominations/Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio
[edit]... that Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio's musical style is 1960s and 1970s soul-jazz? Sources: "Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio is a 21st century contemporary soul jazz-funk outfit" [1], "soaked in the '60s and '70s traditions of funky organ, guitar and drum trios" [2], "60s and 70s-sounding funk, blues and groove soul-jazz amalgams" [3].- ALT1: ... that Close But No Cigar, an album released by the Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio, reached number one on the U.S. Contemporary Jazz Albums chart? Sources:"its debut album, Close But No Cigar (...) it went to No. 1 on Billboard's Contemporary Jazz Albums chart" [4], "Their debut album, Close But No Cigar, (...) It hit number one on the Contemporary Jazz Albums chart" [5].
- Reviewed: J.I.P. James
Created by Bammesk (talk). Self-nominated at 19:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
Article is new enough, long enough, within policy, and no copyvio or related issues are apparent. Hook is cited by a reliable-enough source in the article, is formatting correctly, and is short enough. I'm not really sure how interesting the hook would be, however. Is there something particularly special about their musical style being 1960s and 1970s soul-jazz? Were they one of the only musical groups at the time to play in that musical style? Were they one of the first? All musicians or musical groups play a certain style, so I'm not sure if it's interesting enough for DYK. I'll give you a chance to respond with your thoughts, as I may just be completely oblivious here. :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts and review. Frankly the band is new and there isn't a whole lot of info about them, they became notable just earlier this year by charting an album on Billboard. So the answer to your question is: I don't think there is a more interesting hook! But give me 24 hours and I give it more thought. I reply tomorrow :) Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ... @SkyGazer 512: Bammesk (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work. I would hate to not promote a DYK just because the hook isn't interesting when it is clearly a good candidate otherwise, but I think sometimes that's just inevitable. A lot of topics are like this; they're notable, but there's not that much to say about them, and not really that much that would be good for DYK. If you're not able to find a more interesting hook, I'll probably request a second opinion for this nomination and see if someone else thinks this hook will do, but I personally am doubtful as to whether it's something people would be interested enough in to fall into a "Did you know?" section of the main page. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: I've been looking through the article and trying to find possible hooks. What would you think about something like "... that the Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio released an album, Close But No Cigar, which was number one on the U.S. Contemporary Jazz Albums chart?" or "... that Close But No Cigar, an album released by the Delvon Lamarr Organ Trio, reached number one on the U.S. Contemporary Jazz Albums chart?" It's not something extremely hooky, but I believe it's something that readers would be more interested in then simply the musical style that the trio plays. I would be curious to see what your thoughts are on this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SkyGazer 512: I am Ok with letting go of the original hook. Your second proposed option is good, thanks. I am not sure who is supposed to add it as an alternate? Bammesk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: Either one of us can do it; it just means that because I'm the original proposer of the new hook, I'll have to request a new review. I was going to add this hook to the DYK template, but after looking at the prose, there are two references after the information about Close But No Cigar charting number one on the U.S. Contemporary Jazz Albums chart, but neither seems to mention this piece of information. The first is a PDF mentioning the band name, but nothing about the album, and the second one only mentions that it charted number 3 on the U.S. Jazz Albums chart. I'm probably just be missing something obvious here, though, so I would appreciate it if you could respond and point me to a ref that does mention that it was number one on the U.S. Contemporary Jazz Albums chart, so that I can add the hook.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SkyGazer 512: Yes that's tricky. Looking at the current ref. 6, the PDF file at this link: [6], band name is listed under letter "L", and the charting is listed as "CJ 1; HS 20". There is a list of chart codes on top of the page, it says CJ means "Contemporary Jazz" and HS means "Heathseekers". Needs a bit of decoding, it's not obvious to see. The band had no other albums that could possibly chart, so charting is for Close But No Cigar. Bammesk (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) . . . Also, the current ref. 1 says it as well, this link: [7], I added a citation in the article. Bammesk (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: I've added another source to the article, which is likely more reliable than AllMusic and it states that the album reached No. 1 on the charts clearer than the PDF you provided. It's not the very most reliable source ever, but the information is fairly straight forward, so I don't think we'd need a New York Times level source if one can't be found. I'll add this hook tomorrow, but for now I've got to get ready for bed. Thank you for your work and willingness to help with this! --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Requesting a new review now that the hooks have been settled, I am currently too involved to review ALT1. Let me just say, I don't remember ever actually adding ALT1, but apparently I did... hopefully that makes Bammesk less confused as to why I was using peculiar wording such as "I'll add this hook tomorrow" or "I was going to add this hook," when in fact it had already been added. I didn't mean to actually add it at that time... I must have been experimenting to see how it looked before I realized I couldn't find where the source mentioned it, but accidentally saved it there instead of removing it when I posted my reply... lol. Anyways, now the correct source has been added to it, and hopefully someone without a conflict of interest can come along and review (hopefully approve) ALT1. I've struck the original hook. (also, I've forgotten the whole going-to-bed idea, who can go to bed when there are wikis to edit? :-))--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
