Talk:The Stones in the Park

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stones in the Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I might not start the review for another day or 2 though.

Overall my feeling is that there are too many quotes which affect the article's readability. I'd convert as many quotes as I can into prose to try to balance it out more. For instance "Watts later said that the butterflies, many of which on that hot day had died from lack of air in their brown cardboard boxes (there had originally been 2,500),[1] "were a bit sad, there were casualties. It was like the Somme."" could easily be reworded as Watts likened the many butterflies which had died from lack of air in their brown cardboard boxes on the hot day of the festival to casualties of the Somme.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hmm, interesting. One of the reasons I wanted to put quotes in was to aid verifiability, but yes, you don't need to do a verbatim quote to get the sentiment expressed by the source. Anyway, I've trimmed the quotations down to where there are explicitly referring to someone's opinion and would push the boundaries of WP:NPOV to reproduce it as is, and elsewhere, reworded the quote. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

• Check that you are consistent with quote marks, either out or inside the full stop, check the whole article that it is consistent.

 Done I've followed the guideline at WP:MOSLQ, which states the full stop goes inside the quote if it's part of it, or outside if it's not (ie: the original source carries on but the bit reported is at the end of a sentence). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• "He had borrowed the dress, which had been run up for". Run up for? Seems a little awkward.

Ericoides wrote this, so he'll hopefully know what's supposed to go here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a term from the rag trade; you run up a dress, i.e. make it.

run up

vb (tr, adverb)

1. to amass or accumulate; incur to run up debts

2. (Clothing, Personal Arts & Crafts / Knitting & Sewing) to make by sewing together quickly to run up a dress

3. to hoist to run up a flag

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/run up

But it's a bit jargony, so I'll change it to "made". Ericoides (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ensure that all of the sources have publisher info. I'll take a look again tomorrow. Some of the sources like

^ HMV. "Stones in the Park". Retrieved 16 July 2012. It seems strange to place the publisher before the title.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Unless I've made a mistake (always possible, I know!) all sources now have the publisher attributed to them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"While the gig has been fondly remembered by those who were there," Seems a bit OR, any sources?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

 Done Removed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my slowness with this one, been a busy week for me. I'll have this wrapped up over the weekend. Cheers!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've given it a bit of an edit, I felt that some of the shorter sections were best merged and that the lead need significant expanding but I'm happy to pass this as a GA now. At present I can't see FA potential, it will need a lot of work on the prose and sourcing I think to achieve FA quality. Good job though. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Had a look at the refactoring, and the lead is certainly better balanced. I think King Crimson could still deserve a section in its own right - unlike every other performer save the Stones, it was a very important gig for them. On the sourcing front, I need to go through Bill Wyman's book (my copy's disappeared), and the Norman sources need converting to sfn (I'll prod Ericoides). I tend to work in the order - sources, prose, full rewrite / refactor, lead, and suspect I will do the same here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One thing "the Hyde Park concert would be the first time many of the songs had been played before a paying audience." I thought it was free??♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a typo - should say "public audience" - both shows in 1968 were private / invitation only. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mick Taylor2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)