Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)/archive1

Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

 * Nominator(s): isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 1966 album by the Rolling Stones, an artistic breakthrough that advanced the band's musical legacy, a critical and commercial hit that rivalled the Beatles, one of the most critically acclaimed albums in history, a cultural milestone connected to 1960s Swinging London. And now a complete article, thanks in large part to the major contributions of. isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

 * I have no further issues with this and support it. I hope you go through the other reviewers' concerns as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro
Note: I've seen these changes, which look good and have addressed my concerns. I've struck my leaning oppose and I hope to do a full read-through at some point in the next few days. Sarastro (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you have anything more to add, it would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well. isento (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This reviewer has gone MIA. isento (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards
Although never my favourite Stones' album, "Aftermath's" central contribution to the group's canon is well-established. It is a long album, which only just fitted on the vinyl (at least in the UK and with a significant resultant loss of volume). I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and thank the nominator and fellow editors for all their work. My issue is with all those quotations! They break the flow, contain numerous grammatical errors that would require [sic] to be added all over the place. Can't we paraphrase? The other issue with so many quotes is compliance with WP:ENGVAR. Logically, the article should use British English but some many quotes use American English. Paraphrasing would help resolve this. Lastly, I saw spaced em-dashes. Please check with WP:DASH for compliance. I am looking forward to seeing improvements to an otherwise excellent article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have since copy-edited, consolidated and paraphrased significantly, in accordance with the above reviewer's comments and my own findings. If you still find issues, please specify them for my attention. Thank you! isento (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you have anything new to add, in light of the improvements, it would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well. isento (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This reviewer has gone MIA. isento (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The prose flows much better now the quotations have been culled. I don't like the "in order to" here: "In the US, London delayed the album's release in order to market the Big Hits compilation but issued "Paint It, Black" as a single in May. It doesn't seem to fully explain their reason to delay the release of the album. Also, Sandy's  points below need to be addressed. Despite this, I think this article  meets the FA criteria and I support its promotion. Thank you for your hard work on this article – it's a joy to read.Graham Beards (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have revised it to say "in order to mark the Big Hits compilation first", to indicate why. isento (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

 * Do all the images check out now? isento (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from AppleWormBoy
It looks like every worry that I would've potentially had with the article has been resolved from other Wikipedians' comments. Nice job. — AppleWormBoy (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

 * Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from zmbro
Although I don't have much experience reviewing FACs, I've been periodically observing you and JG66's expansions and I definitely it's much better off than it was a year ago. Since you asked, I thought I'd give a few comments or concerns I have. I also have not read any of the comments above so my apologies if I ask things that have already been resolved above: Rest looks great. Fantastic job on this! – zmbro (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should you change "UK version" and "US release" in the infobox to the same word for consistency? Like "UK cover" and "US cover" or something like that?
 * Per Template:Infobox song, the word "Studios" should not be in the infobox (shorten to just RCA)
 * I think release dates should be mentioned befroe recording dates in the lead (as the second sentence). It feels off to me knowing when it was recorded before its release date
 * AllMusic should not be italicized
 * I think refs in the chart table would look better by the charts themselves and not the positions; seems crowded being in the position col


 * , Thank you. I have resolved your concerns, with the exception of mentioning release dates before the recording dates. While the standard on Wikipedia appears to be doing just that, in this case the release dynamic is more complex and works better in the prose if transitioned to later, rather than overwhelming the reader upfront with the complexities of the UK vs US releases. isento (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Makes sense. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SG

 * Good enough for me ... sorry again for my middle-of-the-night foray. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for the support. isento (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)