Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tumbling Dice

[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 take it to FAC and want to see areas for improvement to help streamline the process. The previous PRs are 15-16 years old and not useful for information. I am aware that it needs some work and am not afraid by that prospect. I believe through this PR we can get it to a version that is suitable. After PR and edits, the next step would be to take it to GOCE to make sure the prose is polished sufficiently.

Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 02:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC); updated 15:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved
  • Shouldn't the recording parameter in the infobox say June–November 1971 instead as the Writing and recording section says that the recording process starting June 7, 1971?
    Updated. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the song was also recorded at the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, shouldn't that also be included in the infobox?
    Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure if this sentence, Retrospectively, critics have been surprised that Exile On Main St. produced no other big chart successes., belongs in this article. It is more about the album and not about this specific song.
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple Dreams was released in 1977, but the sentence in the lead gives the impression that it was released in 1978 so I would clarify that.
    That's a good catch. Reworked to correct. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would restructure the Background and development section. It jumps immediately into the information and as someone who has not heard of this song and has very little background information on the Rolling Stones, it is confusing. For instance, the Rolling Stones are not even named or linked in this section.
    @Aoba47: Rewrote it. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage you to remove the caption from the infobox image. From my experience, it is not common to have this type of caption in a song article. The Ruby Mazur part and citation should instead be integrated into the article.
    Good point. I am wondering which section you think they'd be best integrated in? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boogie-woogie is not supported in the article. There's a difference between saying something has a boogie-woogie rhythm and calling it a boogie-woogie. It reminds me of how someone can say a song has rock influences, but that does not make it a rock song. Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: changed to "rock and roll" given that it was referred to as a "rocker" in Rocks Off. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is up to you. If "Paint It Black" does not include the producer in the lead, it should be fine as that looks like it will be promoted to a FA in the near future. I just think it is best to put the producer in the lead like with other song articles (like "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article) but that could just be a matter of personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two comments for this part, a blues boogie-woogie rhythm that has been noted for its irregular lyrical structure and "groove". I would attribute in the prose who is doing the noting, and I do not think the quotation marks around groove are necessary.
    Reworked the sentence and removed the quotes. Attribution added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a rather nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. I would "tell" in this context, The lyrics tell the story of a gambler who cannot remain, as the lyrics cannot literally tell a story.
    That's a good point and thank you for the nitpick. Reworded. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine these two sentences, The song was the lead single from the band's 1972 double album Exile on Main St. It was released worldwide on 14 April 1972 by Rolling Stones Records., and move it up as the second sentence in the lead's first paragraph. From my experience, I have seen the single release information being presented there rather than later on in the lead.
    Combined, but Paint It Black mentioned in same spot as this one does. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just do not see the value in putting this further down in the lead and from my experience, it seems pretty standard to include the single release as the second sentence (or even as part of the first), but this could be a matter of personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rolling Stone citation for the Keith Urban performance is missing the author name (i.e. Daniel Kreps) as well as the article's publication date (i.e. May 12, 2010). I would highly encourage you to look through all the citations to make sure they accurately represent the sources.
    @Aoba47: I have gone through and added missing authors, dates, and publications where I spotted them missing. Does that look better? --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage you to look through how websites/publishers are linked in the citations. I am noticing a lot of issues there regarding this.
    I have gone through the citations and added wikilinks. I may have missed a couple, but I think I got most if not all. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. My comments are mostly focused on the infobox and the lead, although I have briefly looked at the Background and development section and the citations. If I am being completely honest, I believe this article will take a substantial amount of work to be ready for a FAC. I hope this does not come across as overly harsh or rude. I will be more than happy to answer any questions about my comments and I will continue my review once everything has been completed. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: That is totally fine. I do appreciate you taking the time to give your input on this. I know it needs work, but they all have to start somewhere. I think so far we have made some good improvements based on comments here so far and I look forward to others as they are made (by yourself or other editors). I am actively working on it and looking for ways to get it in shape. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are still errors in the citations that I will point out below:

Please do not ping me multiple times. If I do not respond the first time, that means that I am away from Wikipedia and repeated pings is not going to make me come on here any faster. And please do not collapse my comments in the future. That would be something best handled by the reviewer. There's a difference between being WP:BOLD and making edits to change elements of someone else's review. I have focused this part on the citations as that part should be fully in order first. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: My apologies on both fronts. I didn't intend to harass or pester with the pings, they are just a force of habit I will actively try and break. Regarding comment collapsing, I apologize. I am willing to revert back if desired. I was going off of Wikipedia:Peer_review/Red_(Taylor_Swift_album)/archive1#Comments_by_Aoba47 where we did collapse. I should have checked with you first before going off what I gathered was precedent but was evidently mistaken. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to all of my points. It may better to wait to replace the Amazon citations and see how other editors respond to it. You are correct in that it has been used in recent featured articles so it will more likely than not be viewed as appropriate in a FAC setting. Apologies for my comments comments coming across as rude. I will read through the article either tomorrow or sometime early this week. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I will hold off on Amazon. I do appreciate your help and apologize for the ping spam, it wasn't intentional. I look forward to your further comments once you have the chance and hope that you have a great rest of your weekend as well. I definitely am enjoying the fact that it is a long weekend! --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the ISSN numbers, it just seems odd to me that only three web sources have these numbers. I have primarily used them in the context of magazines that I found through Google Books. My primary issue is with consistency and that it just does not seem consistent or clear to me why these three web sources, which each have direct links to their respective articles, would require these numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess only certain publications have them available in a format that VE can view? That would actually be a good question for the tool developers. That said, I have gone ahead and removed them for consistency. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, was recorded at Stargroves using the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, link Stargroves.
    Good catch. I am fairly sure that it was wikilinked before, but looks like it was accidentally unliked. Anyhow, fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, but had heavy emphasis on, I would say a heavy emphasis, but that could be more of a personal preference thing.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would look through the invisible comments.
    Cleaned them up. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the Background and development section has two references to a period (with came at a pivotal period and This started a period were song) and I would change one of these instances to avoid repetition. }}, I am uncertain if the parenthetical release date is necessary and I find it somewhat confusing to have these two years in such close proximity. I would think a better descriptor would be to mention it was their tenth studio album or something along those lines.
  • For this part, According to Charlie Watts, "a lot of Exile was done how Keith [Richards] works", the quote reads rather awkwardly to me. I would look at how it is being used in this part.
    Hmmm...Do you think the quote should be removed? --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems fine to me. I would have gone with the number of the album's release, but the ninth British and eleventh American studio album so that is not an option in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments for the Background and development section. My notes here are relatively minor and nitpick-y. I will likely take a minor break from this peer review on Monday so apologies in advance. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This part, "Tumbling Dice" was initially composed without lyrics being written by Jagger and Richards beyond a few simple phrases., is written rather awkwardly and I am not fully certain of its meaning.
    Basically that they only had some simple phrases (unclear what those were) written and didn't write the lyrics until later. Essentially, the song was composed and practically completed musically before they had any lyrics. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this part, it was "not pure kismet" that Jagger thought to speak to the housekeeper, stating that Jagger was "consciously turning over rocks, looking for something specific"., to avoid repeating Jagger twice.
    Replaced the second instance with "he". --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, stating in an interview with Melody Maker, "I think they used the wrong mix for that one. I know they did.", I would add the year that the interview was taken to the prose as I think this context is helpful.
    @Aoba47: I unfortunately don't have access to the source it was from and the ones I have don't have a direct quote. Rocks Off just says "Mick later claimed that he was certain that the version on the record was the wrong mix" and All The Songs just says that 2 mixes were presented to Jagger and "the earlier of the two was used, but many years later the Stones singer is said to have been persuaded that the wrong mix had been used for the final version...His opinion of hte song is pretty negative: 'I don't really know what people like about it. I don't think it's our best stuff. I don't think it has good lyrics. But people seem to really like it, so good for them.' " --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the "However" transition used in this sentence: However, Rolling Stone associate editor Robert Greenfield, who was present at the mixing sessions, later recalled Jagger telling Miller that he was okay with either mix. It seems a touch extreme to me. It is being used as a contrast to the previous sentence, which is about Jagger hating the final mix, so for me at least, the "however" transition sets me up to think Jagger would later love it or something and him saying that it was "okay" is very faint praise and does not seem contradictory to me really at all. Someone can say something is "okay" and still hate it. These two things do not have to be mutually exclusive. That being said I could be reading too much into it.
    I took out the "however" and think it reads better now. Do you? --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for posting a lot of comments >< Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it! They are very greatly appreciated and thoroughly needed. I really do appreciate your assistance. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain of starting the Music and lyrics section with this sentence: "Tumbling Dice" is known for its groove, with Aerosmith's Joe Perry saying the song is, "so laid-back, it really sucks you in...". For some reason, it reads to me as rather abrupt, but that might just be my personal take on it.
    I split it in two. Does that read a better? --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few comments on this sentence: The song's tempo has often been credited with creating that groove. I would attribute who is doing the crediting here. I would add links for groove and tempo for readers who may not be familiar with this music terminology. This might just be me, but I found this part to be confusing (i.e. the tempo creating the groove). However, this could just be showing the gaps in my music knowledge.
    I have clarified it and added wikilinks as suggested. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid repeating "part" in this part, Jimmy Miller played the last part of the song, right as the coda begins, due to Watts having difficulty with the part., and I would replace the second instance with "it".
    Done. Good idea. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are saying with this part, In a retrospective memorial article shortly after Watts' death in 2021,, but I find it a little too wordy. I think you can make this more concise.
  • Link Ben Sisario in the citation.
    Condensed and linked in citation. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments on the Music and lyrics section. I will be taking a break from this review for the next few days (and I actually mean it this time lol) so I will come back to this over the weekend if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for saying this, but I am going to end my review. I am honestly super burnt-out with Wikipedia at the moment and I will be taking an extended break from it in the near future. Apologies again. Feel free to collapse my comments if I have taken my break before doing so myself. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DMT

[edit]

A look at the prose indicates that this article is very good shape.

  • "including Spin ranking it as the third greatest single of all time and Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" - Current wording is somewhat inconsistent and a bit grammatically...wonky. Due to it being the lede, I propose the simple: "such as those by Spin and Rolling Stone."
  • "diverse styles" → "eclectic/diverse/varied[per your discretion] mix of styles" - Current wording implies more of a judgement on the genres themselves rather than how they relate to the song.
  • '"Tumbling Dice" is known for its "groove"' - Why is groove in quotes? Elsewhere it isn't.
  • '"beyond a few phrases."' - Again, why is this in quotes? Also, shouldn't this whole paragraph be in the section above?
  • It was a quote, but short enough probably doesn't matter. I've gone over every quotation mark on the page and believe there aren't any more issues like this present. I also moved this paragraph to the section above and condensed things a bit. How does that look to you? --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a persistent favourite in live performances" - is dowling referring to the band's tendency to play the song or his own feelings. If it's the former than that seems somewhat redundant.
  • "nirvana" - Wikilink, the buddist concept, not the band.
Spotchecks
[edit]

All sources checked are accurate; slight caveat below:

  • What's the high-quality reliability of StarPolish?
@DMT Biscuit: Admittedly no idea, but it was written by Dave Marsh who is an accredited journalist, so I think it's okay. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this instance is passable, due to Marsh's credentials. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

[edit]
Resolved
@Zmbro: Sample added. How does that look? I feel I may need to cut down the description, but there is a lot to pack in there haha. I debated about just using the trailing end of the song, but it doesn't really capture the "sucks you in" part in my opinion. Open to suggestions though if you think another portion would be better. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had to give more advice I would probably say to have it be more relevant and try to not just copy text that's already present. It might just be me but it definitely feels like it could be a little more relevant. Also make sure you cite direct quotes. – zmbro (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mick and Keith are currently not properly introduced. I would do it like the lead, in the vein of "A product of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards' songwriting partnership"; something like ""Tumbling Dice" was written by lead singer Mick Jagger and lead guitarist Keith Richards and credited to their songwriting partnership." with appropriate links. – zmbro (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This was done copying a suggestion at Paint It Black's FAC and the suggestion here seems kind of forced/unnecessary to me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead can be longer; the second para is currently only three sentences.
    Do you have any suggestions for what can be added? I tried following the form of Paint It Black, but this song isn't as much of a splash and there is admittedly less material to cover with respect to commercial performance etc. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally convert all books to sfn as imo that makes things look cleaner.
    @Zmbro: I have done most, but left the Billboard book refs as they are one offs and wonder if that would look weird. If you don't think so, I will convert those as well. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a specific tool/gadget you have to install in order to see them. It was recommended to me by another editor last year and it's the best. I'll see if I can find what it is. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These should keep you busy for a short bit. Hope these help. – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added the ones that I have access to or find. However, I don't have access to/can't find for Exile on Main Street – The Rolling Stones and The Rolling Stones: Complete Recording Sessions, 1962-2012. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zmbro: Oh, there definitely does. Just is glossed over in the sources I have, probably because it was considered an unimportant detail(?). Let me know if you find something. If we can't find it, it may just have to remain one of the many unanswered questions in the universe though, sadly. Alternatively, it could be as simple as he just felt they weren't going anywhere and wanted to go to bed. There are probably multiple plausible answers haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comments

[edit]

Just some passing comments from me:

Comments from Tkbrett

[edit]

I'd love to see this one up as an FA, so I'll have a look through this article. Tkbrett (✉) 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tkbrett! I look forward to your comments. Please take another look through if you haven't already as the article structure has changed since you last saw it (no real content change, just heading order and structure) --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help feel that the lead could be tightened – at the moment the sentences in the first paragraph don't flow from one to the other.
    @Tkbrett: I've tried some further copyedits but really am not feeling this. What are your thoughts? Any suggestions for improvement? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tkbrett: I welcome your thoughts on this and any potential further improvement. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Returning here, I think it's better than I initially thought, mostly through your having moved the mention of Jimmy Miller, which felt somewhat tacked on. I think what sticks out to me now is that the lead doesn't seem particularly detailed. Take, for example, the FA of "Something", where the release and commercial performance are both contained in the first paragraph while the writing and recording are covered in the second paragraph. Don't get me wrong, your lead hits the main points, I just think it could be a little more fleshed out, such as discussing the unorthodox way it was recorded, the fact that they recorded while tax exiles, and so on.
  • ... to avoid paying 93 percent taxes.: you could provide some brief context about the supertax Harold Wilson's Labour government instituted (here's a source). The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Background and inspiration section of "Taxman" provides something along the lines I mean (ignore the fact that the source doesn't actually support everything in that sentence though...).
    Good idea! Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tumbling Dice" was initially composed without lyrics being written by Jagger and Richards beyond a few simple phrases.: quite an awkward sentence that I'm not sure how to reword because I don't know what it means.
    I thought it was clear, but evidently not. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The musical composition of "Tumbling Dice" was initially written by Jagger and Richards with filler lyrics consisting of a few simple phrases. This uses passive voicing ("written by Jagger and Richards" as opposed to "Jagger and Richards wrote"). We can make it active as: Jagger and Richards initially wrote "Tumbling Dice" with filler lyrics consisting of a few simple phrases. or something along those lines.
  • The basic track was recorded on 3 August 1971, but the infobox currently writes the recording dates were 7 June and October 1971, November and December 1971, January and March 1972.
    Yes, those are when the sessions took place. This song was recorded somewhat atypically and seemingly sort of backwards; they recorded the music without any real lyrics then took it to Sunset Sound Studios and finished it there over multiple months. There isn't an inconsistency here that I can see? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is: shouldn't 3 August 1971 be included as one of the recording dates in the infobox? Or was the work from that session not used on the completed recording? If so, that's not apparent from the text of the body.
  • "Tumbling Dice" is known for its groove. Source?
    Covered by the entire first paragraph of "Music and lyrics". --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was acknowledged forty years after the release ...: passive voicing – who did the acknowledging?
  • The Release section reads like a collection of facts and lists – not much flow in the prose at the moment. Also, I'm thinking the mention of concert films from this section and the mention of the song being played in concert in the Live performances and other versions section could be joined together, since they feel somewhat relevant to one another.
    This currently matches how FA Paint It Black handles it? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think it could be changed there as well. I think the Release section ought to stick to the original studio version, while the concert film versions (which are live performance after all) should be included with the live performances and other versions.
  • I think having "(1972)" tacked on after every mention of Exile on Main St. is unnecessary after the first time. It disrupts the prose of a couple sentences.
  • Why does Lenny Kaye's review get its own paragraph? It could probably be joined to the one above it.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Commercial performance section can be entirely amalgamated into the Release section.
    This wouldn't match what is typical for song FAs? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct. The MOS does mention that short sections should be generally avoided, so you could consider moving it to be a subsection of the Release or Reception sections (as is done at Something), but it's up to you.
  • I think we can ditch the table for Linda Ronstadt's version, since its already covered (MOS:ALBUM mentions "If an album charts in only one or two countries, a table may not be necessary ...").
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments for now after a quick run through. I also made several other changes as I went through. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, TheSandDoctor, this completely slipped my mind! I'll follow up here if I don't end up getting called into work today. Tkbrett (✉) 12:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, comments above. Apologies on the delay ... Tkbrett (✉) 13:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tkbrett: Apologies to add work, but could you please take another look through it? The GOCE completed the other day and I think it addressed at least some of these. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • You can install user:GregU/dashes.js to keep dashes in order.
    @SandyGeorgia: How do I get it to work? I've installed it now. It's on the side column, right? --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep dates in order.
    Already have it. I tried dmy but it didn't cause any changes. I never have seen it work... --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only reason the two scripts are not doing anything is that right now no changes are needed, so it is returning … nothing. The dashes script is in a tab at the top, with a dash on it, and the date script is in the left sidebar, but right now, neither of them are doing anything for me either, probably because I already ran them and everything is already in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch the WP:NBSPs on chart numbers.
  • Take care with also and however (see the top of User:SandyGeorgia)
  • Take care to be consistent with numbers. Although typically numbers ten or less are spelled out, if they are used in the same context as a larger number, then all need to be digits.
  • Vary wording to avoid same constructs right next to each other … Tumbling Dice" spent eight weeks on the UK Singles Chart, peaking at number five. In the US, the single peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. … peaking … peaked … change one of them to something else (reaching, attaining ?)
  • This is awkward … Ronstadt's version became a Top 40-charting single … the correctly hyphenated modifier to the noun single would be Top-40-charting, which is odd. Try something simpler like … Ronstadt’s single was a Top-40 hit the following year ??
  • If you can work on the tips at WP:RECEPTION, you’ll have an easier time at FAC.

That is a very precursory look, not in depth, but I hope some of it helps. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tumbling_Dice/archive4&oldid=1057651619"