Talk:The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Picking it up for a review. Would be making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if I make any mistake! Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• "...including DVD, Blu-ray, and CD, 27 May 2017" part of the same thing mentioned in the notes sections. Could be merged with it.

 Done Good catch. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• If the Rolling Stones had only one manager, then mention "the" Rolling Stones manager.

@Adityavagarwal: Over time they have had a few managers, if you are talking currently (which I assume you are), that is a tad tricky to answer as every member of the band has their own manager(s) and "people" that all have to work together to make things work - it is a complicated hierarchy centering around Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, then it could be left as is! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• "... band was on tour in South America" you could mention the tour name.

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Would be great if you could archive the links for web references for when they die (also, put archive dates).

 Done I usually do that to pages I come across and work with since Ritchie333 used it on The Rolling Stones and I learned of the tool, but it appears that it slipped my mind in this case, so thank you for pointing it out. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Current ref 17 (itunes) should be avoided, so it should be changed.

True, but it is a reference proving that it is on iTunes? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Found one on rolling stones.com. While it does not explicitly mention iTunes, it does contain a link to the iTunes Store listing (click "Digital video" smarturl near bottom of post). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is it from me! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• One more thing that I noticed is "and marked the first time a foreign rock band had performed an open-air concert in Cuba to a crowd of that size" has 4 references, so that could be reduced.

@Adityavagarwal: I have removed one of the refs (was used elsewhere). I don't really want to remove any more as I think that having them included would be a wise idea. I kind of think that the NY Times ref should stay, but also do not want to lose the Reuters or Variety refs (that is the only place the latter two are used in article - maybe a "Further reading" section would be a remedy for this?). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That does it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A very strong article overall! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this Adityavagarwal! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Well done with the article!

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: