Talk:Mick Jagger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I will give this a go. I've had a quick spin through the article and can't see any showstoppers. One quick comment, which I'll come to in more depth later, is the relationships and family lists would probably sit better as prose.

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thanks! I was actually just thinking about the nomination of this article yesterday afternoon. Just for your FYI, Tumbling Dice is also under review at this time, so may require more time to chase both reviews down at the same time, but will try my best and will be in a timely manner regardless, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., love the edit summary "you can't always GA what you want". --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out part of my response above as the other review appears to be wrapping up quicker than I expected. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" - this quotation should be in the body, with a source

Done It already was in the legacy section? Anyhow, added more sources and an additional sentence directly after it in legacy section. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must have just missed it. Sorry this is going at a bit of a glacial pace :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for doing the review. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

The Wargs.com source identifying Jagger's parents birth and death dates is a dead link

I went to go fix this, but noticed that the site link is archived (therefore making it still easily acceptable)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can use an archive link, but I'm wondering what makes it a reliable source? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed the source and added sources to The Telegraph instead as, simply put, I am not sure what made Wargs.com a reliable source. Because of this I removed it and replaced with The Telegraph. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A brief sentence explaining how Jagger became part of the Stones would be useful - the narrative jumps from Richards and Jones wanting to start a band, straight into the Stones' early days

I have added a brief paragraph, what do you think of it? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1960s

"This was before Andrew Loog Oldham became their manager." - Why is this sentence relevant here?

Done No, not really. Removed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about Mick Avory is off-topic; it could be moved to a footnote in the main Stones article

@Ritchie333: Where where you suggest adding it in the Stones main article? Will happily move it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just after the first sentence in "1962–1964: Building a following", where it talks about the first Marquee gig. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanity Fair reference needs more information - page number, publication date, ISSN number etc

Done While I could not find the original article details, I was able to find a couple of references containing the quote from Vanity Fair citing the publication and year. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say a bit more about Jagger wanting to get rid of Jones towards the end of the 60s? This source isn't great but there was certainly animosity between the two, with Jagger and Richards thinking that Jones wasn't pulling his weight by the time they were recording Beggars Banquet. I think this needs exploration.

What do you think of it now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's better Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for your input!

. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you talk later about the second Hyde Park gig in 2013, we should really bring up the 1969 one here - I know this is "Stones" generally but the most memorable parts of the gig (IMHO) are Jagger's. A sentence or two about him coming onstage first, delivering a eulogy to Jones, quoting from Shelley, and releasing the doves, should do it.

Done Good catch, added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1970s

"The Rolling Stones and several other bands recorded there [Stargroves]" - do we know which ones? "Won't Get Fooled Again" was recorded there

Done Yes, there is a ton of info on it and a Canadian news show did a 5 minute documentary about it listing everything ([1]), so I have now added that and more of what was listed in the Rocks off 50 tracks book. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Jagger, along with the rest of the band, changed his look and style as the 1970s progressed" - can we expand on this? I can't really see that much different stylistically between the '69 and late '70s tours, except maybe a lot more lights and bigger sound system

Done Added this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source : "Gibson Lifestyle, Deepest Cut: The Rolling Stones Let It Loose from 1972's Exile on Main St., by Russell Hall 20 February 2008" isn't specific enough - what is this?

What do you mean? Here is the link to the source on Gibson.com [2] --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it - without the web link I couldn't work out what I would look for when attempting to verify the facts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this point is dealt with? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'll meet GA standards now Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get one other source re: the Hells Angels attempted murder? This doesn't sound particularly significant and if another independent source doesn't cover it, I think per WP:BLP it should go

I have added a reference to Rolling Stone and The Telegraph - can look for more but don't want to be overkilling it. Do you still want it to be removed? I think it is worth mention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just another source will suffice. Ritchie333^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the two I added are good? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so Ritchie333 ^(talk)^(cont) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Okay, in that case, marked as done. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any mention of Jamming with Edward?

Done Added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1980s

Quite a bit of prose here isn't in the sources given, I have tagged this with "fact" tags

Done Sources added. I did have problems with one citation needed tag from the 1990s section (last tag in article), I cannot seem to find a source for it at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger's solo career is glossed over. Do we know why he wanted to record solo? Was he just trying to diversify, or was he trying to get out of continual feuding with Richards?

@Ritchie333: Added a sentence that I think joins it together (and is, of course, sourced), what do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2000s

"spawning the hit single "Visions of Paradise" - what chart position?

Found this, but I'm not sure what WoC means? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"weeks on chart" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! I have reworked the sentence and added the source I previously linked (see my response immediately above your last one). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010

SuperHeavy seems to be glossed over - another sentence or two explaining their formation would be useful

Done Added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Keith Richards

"World War III" needs to go into more detail here. You could also bring up the anecdote around that time where Jagger phoned up Charlie Watts in the middle of the night, causing him to come downstairs and smack Jagger in the face (not forgetting to put on a smart suit and shave properly first, of course), saying "Don't you ever call me your f***ing drummer - you're my f***ing singer" (or something like that)

I have added more content regarding the "World War III" bit, what do you think? Also, I am wondering how the thing with Watts (which is quite famous among fans) is relevant to the Jagger/Richards feud? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the above, a "Relationship with Brian Jones" section may also be useful

Acting and film production

The prose in this section is really choppy; lots of "He did this. He also did that. He also did the other". See if you can break up the flow a bit; possibly explain why Jagger got the part

I have changed it up a bit, what do you think now? And what part are you referring to? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Jagger has also had an intermittent acting career, most notably" - instead of "most notably", give some more concrete reason such as "most commercially successful" or "most critically acclaimed" (not sure which is correct here)

Done Reworded it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source "Jodorowsky's Dune (2013), Frank Pavich, Documentary" is too vague, needs more information
We don't need that lengthy quote from Vanity Fair about "Shine a Light" - it should be trimmed down

What do you think of it now? Have trimmed it down. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks better. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

As stated above, this list should be converted to prose

How would you suggest doing that structure/flow wise? I was the one who put it all in a table from a list of dates

. Do you prefer this version? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - but I think the best place to start is to take the text in the table and just copy into a paragraph or two. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I converted it all to prose, what do you think Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interests and philanthropy

Can we talk about politics here a bit? It's not too big a secret that Jagger supports the Conservative Party; here's a source where he expresses his admiration for Margaret Thatcher while this source shows he supported David Cameron as PM and was mildly in favour of Brexit.

Thanks for the sources, will add this. Then he went 180 degrees on Brexit as listed here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the Daily Express as a reliable source for anything on Brexit (here's why), but you can use Jagger's own Twitter feed to cite his personal opinion per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...yeah...good point - what do you think of what I have added now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

This section could probably be merged with "Legacy"

What do you think should come first in a merger? The existing In popular culture section (just move section header around)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think after you've done a trim (see below point), I would probably put "Legacy" first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many quotations here, with everyone putting their 2c in to what they think about Jagger. We don't need that many; keep the important stuff like Phillip Norman's assessment, but I'd look at all the others and get rid of anything that doesn't give the reader a much better insight into what makes him tick.

@Ritchie333: I am happy to trim this down, I am just not sure what ones to cut out as, after reviewing them, I feel that they add to a greater understanding/paint the picture. Name a few you wish removed and I will happily do it, I am just not sure what should stay. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., I did shrink one or two of the quotes and restructure a couple of sentences in this section while doing the review I mentioned above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

This doesn't need to be a separate section

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Do we need to include http://www.godgammeldags.nu/rolling/stones/solo/mick_jagger/ ?

Done Not really, is also a 404 link. Anyhow,

Removed --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

There is a lot of work to do here to make this meet the GA standards - principal problems are that quite a bit of content is unreferenced, or the references are not sufficient for the level of verification we expect. Some sections are overlong, others are lacking in content. However, I know you managed to pull The Rolling Stones out of the bag, so I will put this "on hold" for now, and see where things are in a couple of days. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed the majority of the concerns raised so far and now pending answers to a few questions (see above) before I can continue much further to wrap up the remaining points. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The major thing that needs resolving are the four outstanding {{page needed}} tags. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: In regards to the page needed tag by this reference (David Pattie, Rock music in performance, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. ISBN 1-4039-4746-5), I think that the person who added it is referencing the entire book (was able to find it on google books and search for "Mick Jagger")? Aside from that, I have no problems with removing that sentence as I have yet to find concrete evidence of it written anywhere --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the source and identified the page number. I've also cleaned up most of the references; however in doing so I noticed some are incomplete. Also, The Sun is a completely unacceptable source for a BLP, so I have removed it and replaced it with a {{fact}} tag. As it stands, there are still five tags to be resolved. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the remainder of the tags and done another tidy-up. I think we're close enough to meet the GA criteria now, so I'll pass the review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie333! Could you please answer the questions I have above though so that I can improve the article further? Any suggestions on improvements before thinking of taking this to FA? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the only questions left were "what do you think of this", which the obvious answer is "fine, barring a few minor bits I'll do now". As for FA, do one at a time! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: True, except for Relationship with Keith Richards section (was also asking point of including a statement). As for the FA, I am doing one thing at a time (just finished this nom, didn't I?

(jk)). I am just fielding my options, do you think that it would be a worthy contender? I have a feeling that The Rolling Stones is one as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]