Wikipedia:Peer review/The Rolling Stones/archive1

The Rolling Stones
I've listed this article for peer review after a GOCE copyedit by and per the latest (failed) FAC on the band. My plan is to address any and all concerns raised in hopes to resubmit the article for FA status (successfully) at some point in the (hopefully near) future.

Thank you for your time, The SandDoctor  Talk 15:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Just a couple of points.
 * Length
 * The article is far too long, and needs about 3,000 words pruning. See Article size. At 226,635 bytes and 74 kB (12719 words) of readable prose, this is in the "Almost certainly should be divided" band. An article that goes on at this extreme length is not one that visitors to Wikipedia will be likely to read, and is not FA material.
 * On the other hand, FA criteria 1b and 1c imply the article must cover all ground and not leave things out. Looking at some similar FAs, U2 and Pink Floyd are 64K, David Bowie is 79K, and the Stones have got a lengthier history than all of these. The prose can be tightened up, but I'd be surprised if we can get it under 70K without breaching those two other criteria mentioned here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A couple of spelling points: "fulfill" and "catalog".
 *  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you recommend moving to a separate article? Also, it is less than 100kB, (100kB & up are the the "Almost certainly should be divided" band). Being 74kB, it actually fits in the lower end of "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". Lastly, what do you mean by the spelling points? "fulfill" and "catalog" are spelled correctly? Thank you for your input. -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about pop music and can't suggest what specifically you need to prune. The fact remains that at 12,161 words the article is far too long to be readable. One loses the will to live when confronted with yet another list of concert venues. The "musical development" and "legacy" sections per contra are admirably succinct. On the spelling I was assuming that as the Rolling Stones is an English group you would be using English spelling rather than American.  Tim riley  talk    05:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Describing the Stones as "pop music" raised a smile here; except for maybe briefly around the early days of Andrew Loog Oldham's management, they've never been "pop"! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim Templeton
I took a look at the article and don't really see anything that jumps out for culling. The different era sections are about the same length, and each has useful information. The other sections aren't too long, and none seem out of place. That's what happens when you've been around for over 50 years. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Do you have any improvements that you could suggest? I would ideally like to take this back to FAC one more time and have that be the one that passes, so am open to suggestions. -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing I was thinking might be a very small gap in the coverage is something about the books written about the band. The two most famous are Up and Down with the Rolling Stones, for which I just created a redirect, and The Rolling Stones: An Illustrated Record.  The latter is in the further reading section, and also buried deep in the "related" section of the The Rolling Stones template []; the former is also in the further reading section.  There may be more publications.  Might warrant a little higher profile. Other than that minor point, the article looks great. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)