Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Rolling Stones/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rolling Stones

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback to improve it before I nominate it for FAC. This is most likely my next one in the pipeline.

Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 16:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's British band otherwise there would be Bavarian, Catalan or Silesian bands. Eurohunter (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: I am not sure I understand your feedback here. "English" in this context, assuming you are referring to the lead of the article, would refer to "English" in the same context as English people; just like how Americans are from America and Canadians from Canada, the English are from England. "English" is how they are referred to in most articles about the band, including the FAs Paint It Black and Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I looked it up on Babbel and "English" refers to people or things specifically from England, which is true of this band; this is also supported by the listed demonym in England being English. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that a Bavarian band does exist, as does a Catalan band (not saying they are stones related, just that they exist whereas the comment asserted that that was impossible). I don't see, though, how that has any bearing here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Bavaria is part of Germany, Catalonia is part of Spain, Silesia is part of Poland and England is part of the United Kingdom. Of course there are Bavarian bands from Bavaria and there is no problem but they are still German same as English bands from England are still British in this context and they can identify as English band or even Commonwealth of Nations band. You are Canadian so Ontarian or Québécois bands are Canadian. Eurohunter (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with English if possible. No-one thinkds of Simple Minds as a British band but rather a Scottish one. The cultural identities are really distinctive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: I agree fully with Casliber. I just added a reference to the first line for "English". The book The Rolling Stones All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track states on page 6 that "...the Stones are an English band". That should hopefully settle this as we'd be going against reliable sources and historians to call them otherwise. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: They are English band locally or culturally, but above all they are British band internationally. If you look at political map there is no England, Bavaria or Silesia. This is the context I mean. Eurohunter (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Aoba47

[edit]

I hope this review is helpful. To be honest, I am probably not the best reviewer for this as my exposure and overall understanding of this band is incredibly (and I mean incredibly) limited. With that being said, I have immense respect for you for tackling such an iconic group as there is a lot of information to wade through and process. Best of luck with this peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I appreciate your assistance with this review; it was most helpful. I appreciate the kind words! This band article was one of my first GAs and I want to get it up to FAC after a few different attempts when I was a more novice editor. I'll let you know when it goes up for FAC (probably in a couple months, once GOCE is done and Jagger is minted FA). --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

[edit]

Sorry for the long wait. Kudos to trying to attempt such a large and daunting subject!

  • General thoughts:
    • Overall, I think the article is generally well-shaped. Given the length, however, I think a little more focus on making a narrative of the history would be useful—you often lose the arc of the Stones' career in digressions on chart performance and minor events. The prose could use more focus on the band itself, summarizing non-band stuff (like solo albums, etc.) rather than giving them as long lists.
      • This becomes a particular problem once we get to the recent (c. 2008 and on) era. For example, this paragraph:
        On 25 March, the band played a bonus show, a free open-air concert in Havana, Cuba, which was attended by an estimated 500,000 concert-goers.[332] In June of that year, the Rolling Stones released Totally Stripped, an expanded and reconceived edition of Stripped, in multiple formats.[334][335] Their concert on 25 March 2016 in Cuba was commemorated in the film Havana Moon. It premiered on 23 September for one night only in more than a thousand theatres worldwide.[336][337] The film Olé Olé Olé: A Trip Across Latin America, a documentary of their 2016 Latin America tour,[338] was shown in cinemas on 12 December for one night only.[339] Olé Olé Olé: A Trip Across Latin America came out on DVD and Blu-ray 26 May 2017.[339][340] The Stones performed at the Desert Trip festival held in Indio, California, playing two nights, 7 and 14 October, the same nights as Bob Dylan.[341]
        We start with a topic (Latin America tour), then give a specific performance (Cuba, attended by 500K people, okay, seems relatively big and worth mentioning.) Then, we skip to June, where we mention a totally different album, then jump back to the Latin American tour, and then spend a lot of time talking about the film and documentary of the tour, with no clear indication of why the release date of the documentary is relevant to the Stones (there's an article on the tour, seems like it belongs there) and then we end with a mention of a completely different concert at the end.
  • Prose:
    • Lead:
      • They returned to their roots with such hits Returned to what roots? I assume this is blues and early rock and roll, but it should be clarified.
      • That year they were first introduced on stage as 'The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World'. This feels a little peacocky for me, and not as useful as more tangible explanations of their success.
      • For the purposes of the lead, I would collapse the Billboard and Rolling Stone mentions as "Billboard and Rolling Stone have ranked the band one of the greatest of all time." or similar.
    • History:
      • At the time, the band consisted of Jones, Jagger, Richards, Stewart, and Taylor. Redundant with previous lineup in previous section. It would make more sense to restate the lineup when you e "classic line-up" a few lines after.
      • The band's name was changed shortly after their first gig to "The Rolling Stones" Should come earlier since we've skipped from their early gigs to increasing popularity at this point.
      • He claimed this triggered an "international renaissance for the blues".[31]—okay? Seems kind of irrelevant to the Stones overall, and it seems weird to privilege his opinion on this, especially since he's quickly replaced.
      • I think the sections on Decca Records and Oldham's interpretation of the band should be adjusted. It seems like a lot of the latter paragraph should be condensed with Oldham's intent on making them a contrast to the Beatles and "bad boys", and that way you are not switching from image to recording back to image.
      • The Stones followed the Famous Flames, featuring James Brown, —I dunno what "followed" means in this context, especially since they say they weren't actually following.
        • There is a misunderstanding here based on the prose that I will try and work out. Brown was part of it and they did technically perform after. What Mick was talking about was that it could be changed in editing potentially. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Re-reading it, that actually seems clear to me as-is. Hmm. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • On 25 October the band appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. Because of the pandemonium surrounding the Stones, Sullivan banned them from his show. Since this is undercut immediately afterwards with the fact he did rebook them relatively soon, I would just say "initially declined to rebook them" or something similar (if a ban lasts less than two years, it's not much of a ban? How often were bands repeating on the show?)
      • During the Stones' early releases, Richards was typically credited as "Richard".[77][78][79] Doesn't seem that important.
      • I think since you start out mentioning the covers, it should be clarified how much original material is on their second album. Seems weird it's brought up earlier and then dropped, but the later albums mention it again. I think it might also flow better if you use that transition to their own material as the through line for the summary, rather than focusing so much on the albums and charting�—it gives it more of a storyline.
        • That is a very good idea. The complicating factor, though, is that they have two concurrent discographies, especially for the early days. Which were you referring to? Their second release in the UK was five by five but was 12 X 5 in the US. My big book of Stones songs (All The Songs) only covers the UK discography, but what I can say is that Nanker Phelge was credited with two of five songs on that UK LP. If you are referring to No. 2, they wrote three of the tracks. Out of Our Heads spawned "Satisfaction" and saw them write 6 (including "Satisfaction"). --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A week later on 12 February, Sussex police, tipped off by the paper, which had been tipped off by his chauffeur This is too much information to stack, and it's also not clear whose chauffeur it is, either.
      • On the treatment of the man responsible for the raid, he later added: "As I heard it, he never walked the same again." soooo... did they assault the chauffeur? Kind of weird thing to include and leave hanging and unclear.
      • The band parted ways with Oldham during the sessions. What was Oldham actually doing for the band at this point? You've already said he was replaced as manager.
        • The article states that Between the Buttons was to later prove to be his last time as producer. There is no continuity error stating that he formally left during the Their Satanic Majesties Request sessions? It is not clear what he was doing at that time. A story] in the Chicago Tribune (and one in the Times-Tribune) I just found appears to back up that the current phrasing is correct: that he left during (or after) the Majesties sessions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Controversy over the design of the album cover—feel like we need more info on the actual controversy?
      • The Stones' Decca catalogue is currently owned by Klein's ABKCO label.[164][165] doesn't seem to relate to the rest of the paragraph's content.
      • As of 2018 Wyman has released four solo albums, with the most recent, Back to Basics, released in 2015.[179] Doesn't seem worth mentioning.
      • their largest audience to date, and finished their set at 7am ditto.
      • In December 1985, Stewart died of a heart attack. You haven't mentioned him in a while and the last Stewart referenced was a different person, so you should probably restate.
      • Once again, a live album was culled from the tour, culled seems like the wrong word here? And if the albums didn't chart all that high, doesn't seem worth mentioning.
      • 2017 section starts with a mention of a recording that hasn't come out, jumps to talking about the 2020 covid epidemic, then jumps back to 2017 to discuss touring.
    • Musical development:
      • "Keith and Brian turned me on to Jimmy Reed and people like that. I learned that Earl Phillips was playing on those records like a jazz drummer, playing swing, with a straight four." unclear who said this, and how it relates to the previous sentence.
      • Prior to the emergence of Jagger/Richards as the Stones' songwriters, the band members occasionally were given collective credit under the pseudonym Nanker Phelge. Repetitious with the mention in "history"; one mention or the other should get cut.
        • The problem is that it is required in the history section as it is mentioned repeatedly but also kind of required in the musical development section as it sets up the following sentence stating how some songs have been re-credited. How would you suggest addressing? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The paragraph about Jagger and Richards' feuds seems like it's in the wrong place (previous paragraph is about musical style, following is about collaboration) and repeats previous material in history.
    • Legacy and tours:
      • Seems like the mention of over 48 tours and their grosses belongs in the tours section, not legacy. The tours section also repeats the Altamont Free Concert bit, without clarifying any further as to why it was important. It also feels again like an irrelevant factoid in the shape of the section.
      • Why do you excerpt quotes about the ban being ants and Jagger having to project himself, and then still repeat the entire quote in full right after?
  • References:
    • Forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @David Fuchs:. I appreciate the review that you have done so far. Are you planning to continue as you had alluded to? TheSandDoctor Talk 06:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for reminding me. Things have fallen by the wayside, this is one :) I've got a trip forthcoming that should give me time to revisit this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Prodding again. If you aren't able that's fine and I will close this off and probably go to FAC shortly. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Ovinus

[edit]

Might add some more comments if I have time. Anyway, [1] "the band released a limited edition..." is cited to a source published before the release date of 17 April. It also may be a close paraphrase. (Found at CCI) Ovinus (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: The fact that it predates it doesn't seem like an issue to me given it included its release date (and there also doesn't appear to be a better source out there readily available in a Google search). As for the flag, it is picking up on the "limited edition" bit, that it is a 7" single of previously unreleased material (Plundered My Soul) and that it was released to honor "Record Store Day". I've put probably the largest flags in quotations there; it seems rather unavoidable without being weaselly or weird. It is a paraphrase save for unavoidable terms (track name, release calendar date, etc.) TheSandDoctor Talk 21:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on both points, thx. Just wanted to alert in case there was a problem. Ovinus (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

[edit]

@TheSandDoctor: It has been over a month since the last comment, and this has been open since July. Are you ready to close this and nominate it to FAC, or are you still looking for comments? Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: as this has been open since July, are you ready to close this and go to FAC, or are you waiting for more comments? Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've closed this as it wasn't exactly fruitful in later stages and has died out. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Rolling_Stones/archive2&oldid=1130167606"