Talk:Tumbling Dice/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary issues

• The lead is rather short; it should reflect the content of the article in the manner of a summary and therefore needs to be expanded. See WP:LEAD.

Reference problems

• Although reference 2 purports to be a comment from Richards/Jagger (and I don't doubt that it is), it is nonetheless sourced to a fansite. As the fansite has no editorial oversight, it does not conform to guidelines on reliability, see WP:RS. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The above reference (to the linear notes?) should either be removed or resourced to a reliable third-party publisher.

• Again, although I can see the point behind references 10, 11, 12, they do not conform to the guidelines of reliable sources. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The notes cited in this article need to be properly formatted according to WP:RS.

• ""Good Time Women", an early version of "Tumbling Dice", was recorded during the sessions for the album Sticky Fingers. The song is a bluesy boogie-woogie heavy on Ian Stewart's piano work. The two songs are similar in structure in that they have the same chord progression and a similar melody." - each of the sentences in this paragraph require substantiation from sources, especially the first two, which are statements of facts not widely known. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• ""Tumbling Dice" is known for its "groove"." - this sentence definately requires a reference. Known by whom?? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor prose

• "Jagger states, "'Tumbling Dice' was written to fit Keith's riff. It's about gambling and love, an old blues trick."" - this is a tag-on sentence, that seems out-of-place by itself. It should be incorporated into an existing paragraph, or expanded. Stand-alone sentences are not generally acceptable in GA articles. See WP:WIAGA. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The second half of the "Recording" section is very poorly intergrated... "Richard said", "Jagger said", "Jagger states", and "Andy Jones said" begin 4 sentences in a row. This is poorly written prose. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There were some minor MOS problems, such as unnecessary wikilinks, but I have addressed these. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm am not too sure how necessary the "Live" section is.... the only notable feature of the section seems to be the first paragraph detailing that the song is a Rolling Stones tour staple. The rest of the material in this section looks rather superfluous. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Critical reception" section contains some good sourced material, but at present is a de-facto list; with reviews being listed one after the other. The material needs to be properly intergrated into a body of prose, rather than being bullet listed. See GA:WIAGA.

I have moved the "personell" section to the end of the article - as that seems to be its location in most song/track articles on WP. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 16, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. This action has been taken immediately because of the substantial problems afflicting this article. The article requires extensive attention and improvement, and is very unlikely to be brought up to GA standard within 7 days. The article has failed GA criteria per the review set out below:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The prose is, in some place, rather poor. There is a tendency towards listing information in sentences. The lead is also too short and needs to be expanded. Additionally, there are isolated sentences that are not part of paragraphs.

   b (MoS):

   • The article generally conforms to the MOS; minor problems were fixed; however the citations could be improved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • There is some problem with referencing in the article; a large amount of assumed knowledge lies behind much of the content.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Whilst most references are to reliable thirdy-party sources, a few are to fan-sites or are fan-based reproductions of published content.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR. Although this is somewhat compounded by the lack of sources for certain information.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter. However, the Critical reception section not only needs to be re-written, but should probably be expanded a little.

   b (focused):

   • The "Live" section contains some digression, detailing concerts where the song was not performed; articles shouldn't be about what something is not.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The single cover in the info box should have a caption.

7. Overall:

   Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)