Wikipedia:Peer review/Mick Jagger/archive1

Mick Jagger

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and want to see areas for improvement to help streamline the process. Please see this section on my talk page.

Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Henni147

@TheSandDoctor: I'm not an expert for the prose part, but I can give a quick feedback to the table formatting:

The filmography table looks good. It might be smart to turn it into a sortable table (except the reference column), so that you can sort after film type etc. Same goes for the singles table, where it would be helpful to sort after the chart placements.
@Henni147: Sortable tables are a new thing for me. VisualEditor doesn't appear to have the option to have one column non-sortable. How do you accomplish that? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: I don't work with the visual editor myself, so I'm not sure how the tables can be turned into sortable ones there. But if it helps, I can do it with the plain text editor and you can take a look at the changes. Henni147 (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the singles table there's an empty column for 'Certifications (sales thresholds)'. If there are no numbers available, I would delete that column as it occupies unnecessary space. Especially for devices with small screen it's better to have as narrow tables as possible.
Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the annotation from the bottom of the singles table and place it either above or below it in list style for better accessibility.
What do you mean by list style? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example for a list of abbreviations and annotations placed above the table: Record scores by event. In our case it could look like this:

"—" denotes releases did not chart.

followed by the singles table. Henni147 (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The single "Eazy Sleazy" is currently centered. It should be aligned on the left, so that it fits the formatting of the other entries in the column.
Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me so far. I hope, it helps Henni147 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Henni147! They are very greatly appreciated. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'm glad I could help :) Henni147 (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full review. I just wanted to point out that the infobox image should have ALT text. I believe the other images already have ALT text, but I'd recommend checking for this. There is a citation needed tag in the lead for the net worth claim. I have not seen net worth information in the lead (see articles like Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, and Katy Perry), although I am not that familiar or experienced with biography articles. It would seem more appropriate to include this information in the article itself rather than the lead, if it can be supported by a citation of course. Apologies for not being much help right now, but I would be more than happy to participate in the FAC when I will hopefully have more time to review the article. Best of luck with the peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for pointing that out. It was sourced to The Richest at one time and lived in the body (from diff when it became a GA)...not sure why the heck it was moved to the lead. Anyhow, I don't think it is needed. I've removed it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Remember to add the ALT text for the infobox image. I do not think the net worth is entirely necessary anyway, and I am uncertain if The Richest would have been an appropriate citation for a FAC/FA anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Did it after replying here

. I agree regarding The Richest. Fox Business stated the same amount, but I also agree it isn't entirely necessary to include the net worth estimate so removed its mention entirely last night. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure that it was not lost in my other point. Thank you for addressing everything. I agree that it is not entirely necessary. Best of luck with this peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have some additional time, I will look through more of the article. As a side note, I think it is really cool that you have an audio sample for Jagger's voice. I was initially wary of it since I had initially assumed (incorrectly) that it was a piece of non-free media, but since it is freely licensed, it is a great use of the media and gives a better feel of the person. My comments are below:

I am not sure if this quote, "was always a singer", is necessary since the quote used later in the same sentence already covers this information.
For this part, on a government grant as an undergraduate student at the, I'd link "undergraduate" to the British undergraduate degree classification article as it may be helpful for some readers and to better match the other educational terms which are linked.
I'd be consistent with either using US or U.S. as both are used in the article. I am sure that there is a Wikipedia policy about which one to use, but I cannot remember it right now. I'd just pick one or the other for consistency.
For this part, the procedure at NewYork–Presbyterian, I would move the citation after Hospital as the current placement awkwardly cuts apart the hospital's name.
I would avoid using four citations in a row as done for this sentence, Jagger was in a relationship with fashion designer L'Wren Scott from 2001 until her suicide in 2014., per citation overkill.
I do not think the accolade link is necessary.
There is a citation needed tag in the "In popular culture" section.
According to the Primitive Cool article, it received a Gold certification by Music Canada, but this information is not represented in the "Discography" section.
For the "Collaborative albums" table, I'd include the — mark for the empty spots rather than leaving them blank.

I hope my comments are helpful. I have only done a quick look through the article (and I have not looked at any of the sources), but it looks good to me. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I greatly appreciate all of your comments. They've all been implemented; I also ran a CTRL + F search for "citation needed" and found no more hits. The four references that comprised L'Wren's mention have all been replaced with a single reference to the Guardian. As always, I welcome any comments/suggestions for improvement. I would love to get this article over the hump (and queued for the main page) in time for his birthday in 7 months. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I have two quick comments to add to my review:

I noticed that there are a fair amount of hidden notes in the article. I am not sure how that would be received in the FAC space so it might be worth looking into further. I noticed a few instances of extra spacing like between the "Relationship" and "Family" sub-sections, but I am not sure if that is the result of the hidden notes or something else.
The "Interests and philanthropy" section is quite short, and it may be worthwhile to find a way to combine this section with the "Honours" section, which is also short. This is just a suggestion though.

I may ask for your help in the future with a FAC (likely sometime in early January) if that is okay with you. It would be nice to see such an influential figure have a featured article. I've seen a lot of discussions about FAs becoming more and more niche (which I frankly dislike as I believe we should let people edit what they are interested in), but this may help with that. Anyway, sorry for the long post. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the double-post. I have decided to post my FAC somewhat early. I'd greatly appreciate any insight there, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: this has been open for two months, and the last comment was over a month ago. Are you still soliciting comments, or is this ready for a nomination? If you are still looking for comments, I suggest posting on Wikiproject talk pages or asking specific editors for feedback. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]