Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rolling Stones/archive1

The Rolling Stones
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)
 * Support as nominator - Mike  (talk) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|25px|  ]] 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Members moved. I thought they didn't really belong at the top as well. - Mike  (talk) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|25px|  ]] 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. RyanG e rbil10 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. RyanG e rbil10 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|25px|  ]] 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)