Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rolling Stones/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2018 [1].

The Rolling Stones[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most commercially successful bands of all time and one at the forefront of the "British Invasion". They have been going strong since '62, are a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, have released 30 studio albums (soon to be 31 according to various sources, including the band), and have been chart-toppers for decades. The band has also been nominated for Grammy Awards 15 times, winning 3 of them (their most recent win being in 2017 for Blue & Lonesome). They have also had 37 top 10 albums on the Billboard 200 chart.

I initially nominated this article in 2017 after not editing it, something I do apologize for as I did not intend to waste anyone's time. Since then I have taken the advice given and last summer successfully brought it through GA, becoming its most active editor in recent years. I believe that the article is now to the point where it can be nominated for FA. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC); edited 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Laser brain[edit]

I haven't had much of a look at this but I was casually checking out the images used and they need scrutiny. I have doubts about the copyright status of some of them:

  • File:Brian_Jones_1965.jpg - The photo was taken in 1965 by Christopher Kevin Delaney, yet it was uploaded to Flickr by "Steve Denenberg" who almost certainly doesn't have the right to release it under CC-BY-SA 2.0.
  • File:Keith-Richards and guitar.jpg - The photo is from 1973 but the Flickr uploader "Dina Regine" was probably a toddler in 1973 and says it was taken in 2008 on her Flickr page.
  • File:Mick Taylor2.jpg - Same Flickr uploader, same problem. The photo is from the early 70's and she almost certainly doesn't have the right to release it.

Oppose under criterion 3 until the images are examined and copyright status verified. --Laser brain (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I am not an expert with images and copyright, but will try to address this ASAP. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These images have been removed for now. Alas SandDoctor, but there was no way around it. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Images you brought up are now removed from the article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: It is a shame that they had to be removed as they were great images. With that said, I do understand and agree with the removal. Their absence doesn't really affect the visual appearance anyway. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keef to me is the most photogenic man to ever walk the earth. But sometimes you just have to let them go. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That made me smile and you are correct on both fronts . --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now watching the "Waiting On A Friend" vid, the man is a god. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good version. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to review the status of the images.

On second thought with this one, it could have just been taken by someone in the front row. The camera details on Flickr is period. A reverse image search only shows 7 origins of this image. One of them does credit a "Michael Conen" (the flickr poster). It could very well be an original? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rolling Stones 08.jpg is claimed as the own work of the uploader. (This next one is a bit of a doozy) This does seem plausible if the image is taken from/of the large screens which are at shows displaying images and video from the stage.
  • File:Platino vodoo lounge.jpg is claimed as the own work of the uploader
  • File:KeithR2.JPG is an image I am not sure about. It is claimed that it is a work of the uploader, but the linked discussions are concerning
  • File:Rolling stones - 11 luglio 2006 - san siro.jpg is from flickr and is claimed as own work. Considering the apparent thumb-splotch in the lower left corner and the fact that it does not appear to be "official," that does seem plausible
  • File:ABiggerBangTwickenham4.JPG is claimed as the own work of the uploader. This does seem plausible as it does appear to be taken from a ways back in the audience and doesn't appear to be professionally done.
  • File:Rolling Stones Berlinale Filmfestspiele 2008 Berlin.jpg from flickr and claimed as own work. This does have some doubt though as, while the year does line up, they would have to have been in a semi-privileged position to get the shot (definitely not impossible though).
  • File:The_Rolling_Stones,_Prudential_Center_2012-12-13.jpg claimed as own work (on Flickr). Although it is from Flickr, it does seem plausible to indeed be their own work as it is not professionally done (not official) and taken from a ways back in the audience.
  • File:Rolling Stones 14.jpg is claimed as the own work of the uploader. While this is possible, I do wonder if that is the case. I haven't seen the (2013) Hyde Park concert film recently, but it does appear to be of the quality calibre that it might be a screenshot from the film.
  • File:Rolling Stones in Cuba-4601.jpg claimed as own work of the uploader. This instance seems more plausible than the above one. They were probably just in the first few rows (my guess: the first).
  • File:FGF museum 04. Keith Richards Telecaster.jpg uploaded to Flickr and claimed as own work. In this instance, it appears to be plausible due to the quality and fact it appears to have been taken through a display case.
  • File:Brian Jones guitar, HRC Sacramento.jpg uploaded to Flickr and claimed as own work. This does seem highly plausible as the guitar is (or was, might not still be) in a (semi) public setting and taken through a display case.
  • File:WaGriz RollingStones.jpg the permission link is now dead. Is eGriz the actual website for the stadium (or group owning it)? If so, it might be plausible. I believe that this image (or one like it) is definitely needed in the legacy section.
  • File:The Rolling Stones stage props at Prudential Center 2012-12-13.jpg is from Flickr. Its claim as "own work" does seem plausible as it appears to be taken in the audience shortly before the band took to the stage.

That concludes an analysis of all the images within the article. What are your thoughts Laser_brain? (cc Ceoil). --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil[edit]

I have concerns about stewardship. Its very obvious which sections are due to earlier, now retired, editors (these sections are very well written to be fair, and see last FAC) and which are tacked on by random ips or record label promo people. I'm not sure that one person can single-handedly address the concerns that might impede this attaining FA standard. Examples only from a sample of four odd paragraphs, but reflective of issues throughout the article. That said, TheSandDoctor is to be applauded for dedication and willingness to take feedback.

  • Richards' addiction to heroin delayed his arrival in Toronto; the other members had already arrived, waiting for him, and sent him a telegram asking him where he was. - The heroin addiction is already mentioned, after that, so what about a telegram, and why do we have to spell out "asking him where he was".
Trimmed --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1974 album It's Only Rock 'n Roll was recorded in the Musicland studios in Munich, Germany; it reached No. 2 in the UK and No. 1 in the US.[171] Miller was not invited - ...to the recording session you mean. Sentence structure is a problem here - better go with "was recorded", "not invited", "it reached nr two". This confused ordering of claims is a common issue throughout the page.
Expanded slightly, will rework further if needed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near the end of 1974, Taylor began to lose patience with a number of band-related issues.[176] The band's situation made normal functioning complicated, with band members living in different countries - "a number of band-related issues" is hopeless vague, to the point that it seems the author neither knows why or cares. Also, "band" x 3.
I agree. I am expanded it from a BBC article. Instance of "band" has been reduced by one (with one of the remaining now being part of a quote from the article). --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rolling Stones needed to find a new guitarist, and the recording sessions for the next album, Black and Blue (UK 2; US 1) (1976) in Munich provided an opportunity for some hopefuls to work while trying out for the band. - "to find" is redundant. Chart positions inelegantly thrown in in brackets. What does "some hopefuls to work" mean
Resolved redundancy, clarified. How do you think the chart positions could be thrown in more elegantly? I am almost wondering if they are needed there at all. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above sentence becomes clearer here, but the session musician connection is not made Both Beck and Irish blues rock guitarist Rory Gallagher later claimed that they had played without realising they were being auditioned, and both agreed that they would never have joined - Dont like "would never have" either
@Ceoil: "Would never have" removed. What do you mean exactly by "the session musician connection"? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood officially joined the Rolling Stones in 1975 for their upcoming Tour of the Americas, while the Faces disbanded - "while the Faces disbanded" - pretty strong statement, really badly stated, with no further context and leaving so many open/leading questions.
I debated removing the bit about the Faces disbandment, but ultimately decided to expand on it and link to the article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns about the nom of an article that has vastly dated promo debris like this at the time of it candidacy [2]
  • Dirty Work (UK No. 4; US No. 4) was released in March 1986 to mixed reviews despite the presence of the US Top Five hit "Harlem Shuffle". - presence??
I have resolved this. I think it was meaning the the single on the album was a hit, but the rest of the album was mixed. I might re-add and tweak it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With relations between Richards and Jagger at a low, Jagger refused to tour to promote the album, and instead undertook his own solo tour, which included Rolling Stones songs.[205][206] As a result of the animosity within the band during this period. Examples of this throughout - don't need to endlessly clarify; here we can loose "his own", and "within the band during this period".
"his own" and "within the band during this period" removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • met with moderate success - of what type? Critical, fan, commercial
Commercial; added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • going gold
That is awkward. All three instances of "going gold" have been changed to "certified gold". --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early 1989, the Rolling Stones, including Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood as well as Brian Jones and Ian Stewart (posthumously), were inducted into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.[71] The American? And can we sometimes just say "the Stones", for readibility
"The American" was present? "Rolling Stones" condensed to "the Stones" per your suggestion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a serious copy edit and too many issue at this time. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I appreciate this feedback and I assure you that I am indeed committed to addressing issues raised. Over this coming weekend (probably starting tonight, I just dont have time for the next couple hours) I shall address the specific examples that you brought up and re-review the article looking for more. Unlike last time, I intend to keep close tabs on this discussion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SandDoctor, but I think the level of editing on prose need for FA might be a stretch for one person, especially in the time constraint of an FAC. Overall, the article is engaging, largely focused, and hits the right notes, but is tellingly weak across passages. I suggest canvassing for help in tightening, and also cutting down in areas, especially around chart positions, announcements, etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Fair enough, I shall look for some to assist. I also appreciate the copyedits that you have made so far. I am going to probably head off for the night, but I have dealt with a bit over half of your specific examples. I shall look through the article further later (hopefully with some help). Do you know anyone who is good with images? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SandDoctor, re images, look at other music bios that have passed FAC and do what they did. You might be able to make a claim to include one or two non free images, but not as many as you have. I would start by trimming down the non essential ones. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band was first led by Brian Jones, but after developing into the band's songwriters, Jagger and Richards assumed leadership when Jones was dealing with personal troubles and legal issues. - not a good summation! Ceoil (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does that line look now Ceoil? I moved it to where it made a bit more sense (was located after Jones left the group, so moved just before) and reworked it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

The prose is poor throughout the article. It suffers from proseline, which in turn gives rise to illogical flow. (For example "At that time, the line-up included neither bassist Bill Wyman, who joined in December 1962, nor drummer Charlie Watts, who joined in January 1963, thus completing the band's original rhythm section.") A Featured Article should be a pleasure to read; this one is unbearable. Graham Beards (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I appreciate the speed with which the nominator is trying to deal with issues raised but it does look like this nom was premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. It sounds like a copyedit is indicated, after which I'd suggest Peer Review and perhaps the FAC mentoring scheme prior to another attempt here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Rolling_Stones/archive3&oldid=844760240"