Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tumbling Dice/Archive

Tumbling Dice[edit]

Self-nomination. I've been working on this almost non-stop for days and I think it's FA material. Decided to be bold and nominate it. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object. Article seems a bit too short to be comprehensive to me. Most of it is about the Rolling Stones singing the song on their tours (something I'm not sure is very encyclopedic), and there's no mention of the song's origins. The fair use picture of the Stones on tour is not justified as fair use, I think — this is an article about one of the Stones' songs, not about them or their touring career (see Wikipedia:Fair use). Johnleemk | Talk 05:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the song's origins.: You mean: "The song's first incarnation was "Good Time Women", written during the recording sessions for the album Sticky Fingers. A demo was recorded in the key of G and played at 120 bpm. or maybe Jagger states, "'Tumbling Dice' was written to fit Keith's riff. It's about gambling and love, an old blues trick."?

Not fair use Yeah, okay. I got a better picture I can use. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

about them or their touring career -- Shortened and Sweetened

(see Wikipedia:Fair use) Thank you. Now I need to go buy some asprin. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I think a short sentence on where "Good Time Woman" came from would help, though; there may be not much of a story behind this song, but every song has some form of inspiration. Thanks for removing the fair use picture and trimming the live section. If we can get slightly more detail on the song's beginnings, I will change my vote to neutral. Johnleemk | Talk 06:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "Good Time Woman"'s lyrics were largely uninspired, Jasgger seeming to rip himself off on "Honky Tonk Women" wouldn't be POV, but it sure isn't verifyable. Because there's nothing and I mean NOTHING on GTW. In the meantime I culled over a few of my sources and found these quotes. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 08:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good enough. I don't think I'll support just yet, though. I won't stand in its way either. Regardless, take pride. Most of our articles don't even cite sources, while you've managed to create something that at least appears organised, structured, well-written and well-referenced. Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. "Critical Acclaim" section is not NPOV-compliant, especially since it cites only a single review. To be comprehensive and meet FAC criteria, article should include a representative sample of the the range of critical comments, particularly with regard to reviews from the time of the album's original release. Just because material like that isn't easy to find online doesn't mean it's an exception to the FAC requirement that articles be comprehensive (a problem with many pop music articles proposed as candidates here). Monicasdude 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've quadrupiled the length of that section. I hope you're not commanding me to find a negative review of the song. It was hard enough to find good reviews. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Perry book actually has five reviews of Exile on Main Street and the Kaye is the only one that really says anything worth quoting about "Tumbling Dice". New York Times, NME, Melody Maker, none of them say anything of any qoutability about the song. Tumbling Dice isn't "Imagine". I'm No Parking and I approved this message