Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Rolling Stones/to do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:The Rolling Stones Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:08, 9 May 2006 editJudgesurreal777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,231 editsNo edit summary  Latest revision as of 07:27, 26 April 2013 edit undoJoefromrandb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,279 edits tidy list 
(9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
*the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary. *the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary.
*all images need sources and fair use rationales. *all images need sources and fair use rationales.
⚫ *<s>The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone</s>
*The article lacks references,currently has a few html links in text which lack supporting information, and when they are there they need to be cited as footnotes
⚫ *The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone
*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 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.
*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 *<s>Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 50+ years the band have existed</s>
*Fannish tone. *Fannish tone.
*After cleanup, improve to good article status.
*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.
*unlike many articles for major musical artists, this page has no section about legacy or influence.

Latest revision as of 07:27, 26 April 2013

  • the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary.
  • all images need sources and fair use rationales.
  • The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone
  • 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.
  • Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 50+ years the band have existed
  • Fannish tone.
  • After cleanup, improve to good article status.
  • unlike many articles for major musical artists, this page has no section about legacy or influence.