Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rolling Stones/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2017 [1].

The Rolling Stones

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British Rock band The Rolling Stones. It was previously nominated back in 2006 for featured article status (by another user here), however, it was declined. I am renominating it as the article has substantially improved in the 10-11 years since 2006 and might potentially be of the right calibre. Notability is certainly not an issue with this article. TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) *Support as nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TheSandDoctor, you have no edits to this article. Please see the instructions at the top of the FAC page ... have you talked with anyone who's worked on the article to see if they're ready to respond to questions at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I have made contributions to Rolling Stones related articles/pages, but not the main one apparently (I honestly thought I had for some reason...). Did not see the bit regarding talking to any regular editors of Rolling Stones however did make a post on its talk page regarding this. My apologies --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I figured out why I thought I had edited Rolling Stones from, I updated the Rolling Stones template to reflect their most recent concert film (which was not on it). I plan to create the page for the concert film shortly (just won't have the time today most likely) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless we see, fairly quickly, that the main editors of this article are a) happy that this article has been nominated, and b) believe it meets the FA criteria and are able to assist in making sure of this, then this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Roger, I have tagged some frequent editors of the page in the post and amended my post on the talk page Talk:The_Rolling_Stones. My apologies for accidentally missing some of the steps. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, note that it's not normal practice here to support your own nomination, and it's pointless since the coordinators will disregard it, I'd strike it if I were you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: How do I do that? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, put <s> before the text and </s> after Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Struck my supporting comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the 5 editors with over 100 edits has edited it in the last 5 years, and that was over 2 years ago. It seems to be on autopilot & I can't see this working. I don't blame them (if they are still active at all) as the volume of edits is pretty high. That said, the article looks in good shape, perhaps for GA. But I think a much closer familiarity with it would be needed for an FA nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "1962–1964: Building a following" has too much close paraphrasing and unsourced quotations, "1965–1967: Height of fame" has choppy paragraphs and no source for "it was one of the first pop songs to address the issue of prescription drug abuse". 1968–1972: "Golden Age" - Golden Age in whose opinion? Also has an unsourced paragraph and unsourced end of paragraphs. "1989–1999: Comeback, return to popularity, and record-breaking tours" last paragraph unsourced. "The Rolling Stones are notable in modern popular music" - see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED. Citations to the Daily Mail, not enough use of the best book sources, no citation to Philip Norman's Jagger biography (is it relevant?), recent bickering over genres on the talk page .... could be worked into GA with some effort, but FA needs a thorough re-examination of all the source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this may be some way from FA status, unfortunately. This may stem from the nominator not being a major contributor to the article. There is one oppose with some major concerns, and Johnbod implies that it is some way from meeting the FA criteria. I hope that someone does work on this away from FAC, maybe beginning with GA, as I'd really like to see this back here at FAC some time. In any case, there should be the usual two week minimum wait before renominating. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.