Wikipedia:Featured article review/(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction/archive1
Criteria 1b and 1c. The entire article contains only 12 line citations. Very weak treatment of criticism and social impact that consists mostly of weasel words. This made FA in November 2004 and problems that were identified in April 2006 have not been addressed. See Talk:(I_Can't_Get_No)_Satisfaction#Article_needs_work. Some of the site's good articles are better than this. I hate to put anything up for review the day it's on the main page but I call 'em as I see 'em. DurovaCharge! 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe there is a policy regarding the time that has to pass before an article on the main page can be posted here, but I'll let others speak to that. I would like to note that there are 25 inline citations, not 12; the references are reused. This is not, in itself, a problematic number for a shorter FA. The writing, such as in the lead, could use improvement. That this song is by the Rolling Stones (if we didn't know!) isn't mentioned until the fourth sentence. "Jagger/Richards" is unnecessarily blunt for the opening sentence, whether we have an article titled that or not [scratch that, it's already been changed]... etc. –Outriggr § 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:FAR, "Please do not add reviews for pages that are Today's Featured Article or listed as one of the three recently featured." I'm going to go ahead and remove this; it should be reopened in four days when it's gone from the main page. ShadowHalo 03:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)