Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rolling Stones/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rolling Stones[edit]

This is a very well written, and put together article about one of the most influential bands in the history of rock and roll. The pictures are great as well. - Mike(talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator - Mike(talk) 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'd suggest that you move the list of members further down. Also, the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary. Also, all images need fair use rationales. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Members moved. I thought they didn't really belong at the top as well. - Mike(talk) 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. For several reasons:
    • The lead section is not properly organized into a three paragraph introduction.
      • Okay, okay. I'll drop the three paragraph lead objection. A three paragraph lead is simply customary, that's why I asked for it. RyanGerbil10 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article lacks references, which is an important requirement, and when those references are added, they will need to be properly cited within the article, including footnotes.
    • The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone, and the sections themselves are extremely long. It seems like they could be reorganized so that instead of a chronology of the band, each section focused on one element of the band and how it changed throught the band's history.
The information is here; it just needs references and organization. RyanGerbil10 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. I didnt even realise that the article lacked source. I should point out, however, that it is not mandatory for 3 paragraphs to be in the intro. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
  1. Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 40+ years the band have existed
  2. No list of sources, a few html links in text which lack supporting information
  3. Fannish tone.
--nixie 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I've read only the lead, which I don't think should necessarily be in three paragraphs, RyanGerbil.

This sentence is not nice: 'By the end of the '60s, The Stones had racked up a great number of hit records, each single displaying an alarming rate of musical growth.'

    • Upper-case 'T' for 'The Stones'?
    • 'racked up' is too colloquial for this register.
    • 'a great number of'—would a single word do here?
    • 'alarming'—this appears to be inappropriate here.

Tony 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. No references. Most of the images have no source or fair use rationale. Examples: Image:Rstones3.jpg (what magazine is this from, and why is the magazine's name cropped out?)--Fallout boy 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Upper case "t" is correct. In their Album "Jump Back:The Best of The Rolling Stones", the little book in the cover capitalizes the 'T' in 'The' in middle of a sentence several times. - Mike(talk) 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Rolling_Stones/archive1&oldid=1136457835"