Talk:The Rolling Stones/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Beatles has been FA for years, The Who has been GA for a couple, so this really needs to follow suit. I've done one Stones GA myself, so I know enough about the basic history, plus I've got Keith Richards' autobiography to hand if you need any additional sources. In the meantime, I'll go and get my vinyl copy of Let It Bleed, stick it on full blast, and go and read through the article. I can't see an immediate need to quick-fail it, so give me a day or two to read through it, and I'll see what comments I can give you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to copyedit articles as I go along, and stop and ask questions en route.

Thanks for taking the time to review this and no rush. If you can find any references from the book, please do let me know. I have the band written book According to the Rolling Stones somewhere (and a couple other third party ones) as well, so could always leaf through that if there are any questions it might be able to answer. Hopefully this article can make it to GA and then on to FA eventually and join The Beatles there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of claims in the article that are not sourced. I have added {{fact}} tags so they are easy to spot.

Done I have addressed all the {{fact}} templates present as well as the better source ones. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book citations all need page numbers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources that are given as bare URLs. These should be fixed by using proper reference templates.

@Ritchie333: Do you mean things like "Booth 2000, p. 276."? If so, those aren't URLs, clicking them leads you down to their relevant bit in "Sources". With that said, if you want them all converted the the traditional referencing, I will happily do that, will just be a lot of work. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, anything that is <ref>[http://example.com Example website]</ref> should be fixed per WP:BAREURLS. Book citations in plain text eg: <ref>Smith, John My Life as Keith Richards' Stunt Double, Strange Books, 2009 p. 123</ref> should be converted to {{cite book}}, or even better still using shortened footnotes with Harvard referencing, of which the article has numerous examples already. See Help:Shortened footnotes for more. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think you need to drop the "lead" and "rhythm" descriptions and just go with "guitar", as the group is famous for not having one of the other but just swapping between lead and rhythm as necessary.

@Richie333: Very true. Do you think it is alright to leave "lead" by Mick's name in the lead as he does do the vast majority of the vocals on their songs? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine; indeed, it's generally only fans who know that other band members have sung lead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"During this period, they were first introduced on stage as "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" - this (and the rest of the paragraph) isn't in the body of the article, and everything in the lead needs to be

I have included the line quoted roughly where it lies within the article timeline, but am wondering, do you have any suggestions on how to incorporate the rest? I will look at it further and see, but was wondering if you have any ideas. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted this out during copyediting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to the lead.

1962–1964: Building a following

"Bassist Bill Wyman joined in December 1962 and drummer Charlie Watts joined the following January" This is glossed over a bit; information you might want to include is why they chose somebody who was five years older than them and married as a bassist, and see if you can get a source for Carlo Little, who turned down the job in favour of Watts, and Mick Avory, who was billed to play at an early Marquee gig but didn't show.
There needs to be some mention that Richards was known as "Keith Richard" for most of the 1960s.

@Ritchie333: I know that as a fact and am happy to add it, but have not found a source to cite it online. Is it mentioned in Life or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source - not the greatest but certainly seems to pass WP:RS and is sufficient for a GA. Also, discogs.com has snapshots of the original LP artwork, and if you look at the liner notes for the original 1969 issue of Let It Bleed, he's credited as "Keith Richard" throughout. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using discogs as whenever I have in the past it gets tagged as not being RS enough. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can cheat ;-) Discogs is not a reliable source, but the original LP sleeve notes are. So you can get the information off a discogs snapshot, but use {{cite AV media notes}} giving the title, publisher and catalogue ID. The information is verifiable because somebody who doesn't believe what discogs has can go back to the original LP. That it's difficult to get hold of is not against policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have added the title and publisher, but I am not sure where to find the catalogue ID, do you know what it ix? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The band refused to play it at live gigs" - this needs a better source

@Ritchie333: I unfortunately cannot find a better source within the past hour or so of searching online. I am tempted to just remove the sentence but am hesitant all the same due to the scope of this article. What do you think? Can you maybe see if you can find a source? The other alternative of course is to remove it with an edit summary explicitly stating the sentence and that it was removed (to find again easier should a better source be uncovered). That's the challenge in finding stuff from the 1960s I guess . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I took out Wyman's book from a local library and have found mention in book of it so have referenced the page number. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's dedication to the cause! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any more background into how Lennon & McCartney decided to give "I Wanna Be Your Man" to the Stones?

Done Yes we do, I have added it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original band name - is it Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys Band (per Nelson Intro) or The Blue Boys (as used here) or The Blue Boys Band? (This has bugged me for a long time (I know!)). Tedmarynicz (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1965–1967: Height of fame

"The album was recorded at Chess Studios in Chicago and RCA Studios in Los Angeles" - is that the UK version, the US album, or some mix of the two?

@Ritchie333: They typically bounce between locations. This has also become evident as a practice that seems to follow Jagger around as he bounced all over the globe recording with Super Heavy. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be consistency between "Number 1", "Number-1", "No 1", "No. 1" etc throughout the article

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the album was Andrew Oldham's last venture as the Rolling Stones' producer (his role as the band's manager had been taken over by Allen Klein in 1965)" - instead of just putting Klein's involvement with the group as a throwaway comment here, it would be better to explain why he took over Oldham at the relevant point in the narrative, and expand on it

Done I have taken the parentheses and turned it into a sentence discussing this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about the early 1967 drug busts and tabloid documentation could do with an additional source; as far as I know it matches what I've read myself but with contentious claims towards living people, a second source is generally a good idea.

I have added more sources to that section, what do you think of it now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As well as "We Love You", mention that The Who cut a tribute single to the Stones, and promised to continue releasing covers while Jagger and Richards remained incarcerated.

I did not know about that and would add it, but cannot find a source as of yet for that to cite it - I will keep looking. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1968–1972: "Back to basics"

Worth mentioning that Beggars Banquet was delayed for months over a Mexican standoff with the "toilet" cover

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The following year, the band's contracts with both Klein and Decca ended (cf. "Schoolboy Blues")" - this needs further explanation

Done I am not sure exactly what is meant by "cf." but have added explanation per your request. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"featured an elaborate cover design by Andy Warhol" - a description of the cover would be useful

Done A description and mention of its controversy at the time has been added (and, of course, sourced). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Following the release of Sticky Fingers, the Rolling Stones left England after receiving financial advice." What financial advice? ("Get out of the country or the government will take all your money away"?)

Done That is basically exactly it. I have added a reference to that sentence. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some background into the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio would be helpful, it just appears in the prose out of nowhere

Done You are definitely correct, it did appear out of nowhere without any explanation. Due to this, I have added a small paragraph of it a bit earlier in the article (still within same section though). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1972–1977: Mid '70s

"According to a 2006 article in the Independent" - why is the Independent important here?

Done I removed it as aren't important there by any means, it originally cited the Daily Mail but I found that other publications published (basically) the same thing. Following your advice not to reference the Daily Mail, I picked that publication to replace it in prose to remove all reference of the Daily Mail. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989–1999: Comeback, return to popularity, and record-breaking tours

"The tour was the last to feature Wyman" - I think earlier in the prose we need to mention Wyman's earlier solo albums, as the prose suddenly announces him recording a fourth one

Done You are right, it was rather abrupt. I have added mention of him starting his solo career earlier where chronologically appropriate, also mentioning that it predates solo material released by Richards and Jagger in the 1980s onward (and, of course, cited it all). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2000–2011: A Bigger Bang and continued success

"In a 2007 interview with Mick Jagger after nearly two years of touring, Jagger refused to say when the band is going to retire" - I think this is outdate, at least in the place as it's ten year old. I think we should get rid of this section and find a more recent quotation from the past year saying the same thing, and put it in the relevant place

Done While I recall that quote from 2007, I could not find it - but I was able to find one from 2015

so I redid the quote, swapped the citation (therefore fixing below as well) and moved it down lower in the section where it makes more chronological sense (instead of jumping from 2015 to 2008). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes melodicrockconcerts.com a reliable source?

Done Absolutely nothing that I know of, this has been addressed by the above and is no longer a source within the article, so I am marking this as 'done'. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012–present: 50th anniversary and covers album

"This would be the first official career-spanning documentary since 1989's 25x5: The Continuing Adventures of the Rolling Stones, which was filmed for their 25th anniversary in 1988" - this should be in the relevant place

@Ritchie333: It looks fairly relevant there to me, do you mean putting it in "Band turmoil and solo efforts"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the clarification. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section suffers from the recentism that Wikipedia generates by being continually updated; there is too much "In [month] they did this .... in [month] they did that .... in [month] they did the other." See if you can mix it up a bit.

I have joined a few smaller paragraphs together in the section (i.e. where they talk of same year and makes sense to). As for the recentism, what do you think of it now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's looking better. Obviously major things like Glastonbury, Hyde Park 2 and Cuba need to go in, but it's just a question of balance without information overload. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury & co is already mentioned in the section. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical development

This section seems to be lacking a bit. There's much more you can write about styles; for example, start off with the early Chuck Berry influences, the move to original material by the mid-1960s, the experimentation on Their Satanic Majesties Request, back to basics from "Jumping Jack Flash" onwards, inventing stadium rock in the early 70s, later experiments with disco and reggae. Also mention Richards' development as a guitarist through the 60s, and graduating to doing the odd lead vocal by the end of the decade. I'd expect this to fill up several paragraphs.

Similarly, the "Early songwriting" section should be expanded to include "Songwriting" generally.

I think there need to be a "Critical reception" / "Legacy" section, that talks about awards received, overall sales figures, major overall assessments at various points at their career. Have a look at the GA Genesis (band)'s "Legacy" section for some ideas.

What do you think of merging Early songwriting into Musical development and working from there? I think that merging them would be a way to partly address the musical development concern and would just expand on the framework laid out by the section. As I see it, the songwriting section is essentially musical development and as such should be included/merged into it (not as a sub section) and then expanded upon.

As for the rest of what you mention, I think that it is a good idea overall, but isn't that essentially the history section and repeating information from there (more or less)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as it's designed for a different audience. People may get bored of the history after a certain point and just jump straight to this section. I would definitely include the following:

Exotic instruments (already mentioned)
Using two guitarists ("the ancient art of weaving")
Jagger setting the basic template for rock frontmen
Richards leading the entire band, while most groups follow the drummer
I think the stuff about open tuning, currently in the history, can probably move down here
Watts being a jazz drummer in a rock band
Importance of musical collaborators, particularly pianists / keyboardists - particularly as studio sessions have fluid lineups with Wyman absent quite a bit, and can drag on forever
Influence of drugs - wouldn't go overboard on this but I don't think anyone will cry WP:BLP for asserting that Keith Richards might have taken drugs once or twice. In particular, Richards use of heroin in the 70s meant that Jagger got used to running the show, and when Richards recovered, Jagger didn't like having his power diminished, hence leading to "World War III".

I think if you write a sentence or two about each of those (with appropriate sources), we should be pretty much there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to advise taking List of awards and nominations received by the Rolling Stones as a starting point, but that article doesn't exist, unlike List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles, List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson or List of awards and nominations received by The Who. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you want me to do? www.acesh owbiz.com/celebrity/the_rolling_stones/awards.html This isn't the best source but its information seems to check out and has led me to official websites of the awards mentioning the stones or publications doing so. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think what you've got for awards is fine, I'm just surprised there isn't a "list of awards" article for the Stones already. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the sections should be merged though Ritchie? Additionally, would you want the ideas you mention above (i.e. "art of weaving") mentioned in musical development or the subsection (should it not be merged)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think put it all in Musical development for now - that should suffice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: In regards to the Jagger/Richards feuds I know that it mentions somewhere how Mick would plan (in concert) for the song to start at a particular time and enter at a particular note (or something like that) and then Richards would move it around to mess with/spite Jagger, but I cannot find it online nor have I been able to locate it in a CTRL + F search of a Life PDF I found. I am sure it is in the book, I just can't find page number. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the majority of what you mention above, but I was wondering if you know of any references off hand for the fluid lineup bit and what I mentioned above? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most immediate sources I an think of are - this Rolling Stone article which quotes Wyman on making Exile on Main St. - "not everyone turned up every night. This was, for me, one of the major frustrations of this whole period." while this one says "as widely reported, tracks tended to be recorded by whatever members of the group happened to be around at the time of the sessions", noting Richards and Taylor both playing bass on the album. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have included the listed things you wished to see from above and was wondering what you thought of this demo of section merging and if it is what you meant. If it is what you meant, I will merge it over here and, upon merging, kindly ask that you delete that particular sandbox for me. If not, feel free to edit it or clarify what you meant. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much it in a nutshell, except I'd want to go and just review the prose and sources carefully once it's in place. Structurally, that's nailed it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have moved it over now and have gone over the text, removing some slight repetition. I do want to get rid of that citation needed template, but I am not sure (per the above) what to do as I know it was said in Life but I could not locate it in the PDF. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates. However, the whole of the first paragraph of this section is sourced to an AllMusic review of "Time Is On My Side". This needs proper sourcing Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Band members

This needs sources.

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Jim Price?

Done I am not sure why he was not included, anyhow, that is fixed now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tours

This seems to duplicate the history. A better idea would be took about the importance of tours, the contrast between the basic set-up of the 60s, to starting to fill large halls by the '69 tour, moving to stadiums in the 70s, including catwalks, lighting, PA improvements etc etc.

@Ritchie333: In one of the books I have, there is practically the equivalent of an entire (smallish) chapter (broken up throughout book - thank goodness for word indexes to keep track of where 'tour' is mentioned!) that has Mick and Charlie discussing stage design from various/past years. I have now expanded the section and am wondering what you think of it. I could easily add more if you do not think it enough. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better, now for specifics:

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes stonesexhibitionism.com a reliable source?

@Ritchie: It is an official website of the band that they use for their exhibition that travels the globe, consider it like rollingstones.com. If you want more proof than my word, Rolling Stone mentions the URL specifically [1]--TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The most famous and heavily documented of all the band's concerts was the Altamont Free Concert at the Altamont Speedway in 1969" - are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure Hyde Park July 5 1969 is a contender.

Done I see that you copyedited that out, I did not write that bit, but I agree with you. I would also argue that the stones show in Cuba in 2016 is another contender (albeit weaker than the original Hyde park) and was the biggest concert/act the island nation has ever seen (to date). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"During the 1981-1982 Voodoo Lounge tour" - don't you mean 1994-1995?

Let me get back to you on that (need to look back at book but can't atm) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Looked back at book and confirmed the years, not sure where I got Voodoo Lounge from as I know that that was in the 90s. Anyhow, I have corrected the tour name to the American tour. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intermezzo

I've gone through the whole article now, and fixed a bunch of things but there's more work to be done. In particular, the missing parts for "Musical Development" / "Legacy" and "Tours" needs expansion to meet WP:WIAGA #3a "Broad in its coverage". I think this is some way off meeting the GA criteria, but I'll leave the review on hold for a moment to see what happens in the next week or so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section has been added and I will continue to tweak it over the coming days. The tours section has been significantly expanded (to approx same size as entire lead). As for the Musical Development section, I will work on that pending your response to the question above regarding it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think structurally things are moving in the right direction and we just need to clear everything up. I'll put the review on hold, and once all the issues here are addressed, I think we should be able to pass this. Good work so far. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are now pretty close to clearing up Musical development concern. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article and checked the references. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper and should not be used for articles involving living people, so I've had to remove that. A few book sources had incomplete information, so I've had to tag those with {{page needed}}. Once the tags are fixed, and all other issues listed here are addressed, I think we'll be done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have added additional sources to the page needed tagged areas mentioning them and have addressed the citation needed tags that you added. I have placed a hold on Mick Jagger: The Story Behind the Rolling Stone at the local library so should have it in a couple of days, as for Can't Be Satisfied, I don't have access to that book through the library and have not found an online PDF of it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have swapped the prose for something slightly different and added a source. And with that, I think this now meets the GA criteria, so I am passing the review. Well done! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ritchie! What would you suggest adding to the article to have it meet FA (I do plan to return it there asap)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, check the FA criteria carefully. To get it up to FA, you've got to get every good book source going, and make sure every single citation is to one of them, and ensure that only web sources are used when absolutely necessary (eg: for quotes about influence from third party, or for very recent events the books haven't caught up with). A fatal question you can get at FAC is "why haven't you used source 'x'". Read through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and copyedit the article thoroughly (or, better still, get somebody else to help copyedit it). SchroCat is one of the best copyeditors still active, to pluck a name at random. It's going to take you a couple of months to do all that, and it's a long hard slog. Expect the FA review itself to be about two months long, and you're basically looking at about 6-7 people doing the same in-depth analysis. So don't rush into it! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So would you say that the article (at present) uses too many internet sources? Also, do you have any suggestions for DYK hooks Ritchie? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]