Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [1].

Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) edit

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1966 album by the Rolling Stones, an artistic breakthrough that advanced the band's musical legacy, a critical and commercial hit that rivalled the Beatles, one of the most critically acclaimed albums in history, a cultural milestone connected to 1960s Swinging London. And now a complete article, thanks in large part to the major contributions of JG66. isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson edit

Comments from John M Wolfson
This looks very well done, good job! Here are a few comments of mine:
  • was a popular success – slightly redundant and awkward.
  • Since then, Aftermath has been considered among → Aftermath has since been considered among
  • The second link to Jagger/Richards should be removed per DUPLINKS.
  • For references, sites with limited access should be treated with the |url-access=limited or |url-access=registration as necessary, similar to those that require subscription.
    • Revised one reference, but did not see any others needing this. Did you? isento (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I bring it up because I know that chicagotribune.com limits access to a certain number of free articles per month. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. I've revised the tribune citation. isento (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider using {{efn}} and {{notelist}} for the explanatory footnotes; however, this is strictly a personal preference of mine and in no way affects the FAC as a whole.
  • I'd also cite the ends of more sentences, although this is likewise not fatal to the FAC.
    • Yes. As WP:REPCITE says, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." Using the first three sentences of Lyrics and themes, for example, they are all attributed to Margotin and Guesdon, whose citation ends the third sentence; the first two also mention them by name, so there can be no ambiguity about attribution. I did, however, add an additional citation to Greil Marcus in the same section, to avoid confusion with Courrier, whose citation also verifies Marcus. isento (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks pretty good. I'll see if I can come up with some more stuff later. (Also, I intend to claim WikiCup points from this review.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • It was recorded at ... by London Records. in the lead is an awfully long sentence, perhaps it can be split?
  • everyone connected with the Stones "gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some odd magical instrument". The "gives" should be placed outside of the quote, which in any event could be made indirect.
    • Why exactly? The source uses "give". isento (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the text was written in 1979, which is in the past relative to us. I do tend to agree with the other reviewers about quote usage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I see, you meant about the tense. I have reduce the quote a bit and made it past tense. isento (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Chrissie" in nb7 is redundant
  • Aftermath has since been considered the most important... in "Legacy and appraisal" (keep it in the lead, though)

Other than that, this looks good and I'd be inclined to support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no further issues with this and support it. I hope you go through the other reviewers' concerns as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro edit

Comments from Sarastro
Leaning Oppose: This is a nicely done article, and the research that has gone into it is commendable. The main editors deserve a lot of congratulations. However, I don't think we're quite there yet. I've skimmed through, checked a few sources and dipped into it here and there. I've found quite a few issues that make me question if it's quite ready for FAC. The main issues are use of quotations, the reception section and prose in general. I'm just listing samples; correcting these points would not be enough as there are other examples throughout the article. I'm not going to just dump a shopping list of prose issues as that rarely helps anyone. This isn't a full oppose as I think that we could reach FA standard during the course of this FAC, but the article needs work fairly quickly. A copy-editor familiar with FAC standards would be invaluable right now, but they're like gold dust. Sarastro (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural point: As the nominator says above, JG66 has contributed extensively to this article. Are they happy it is ready for FAC? Additionally, is there any reason that they are not listed as a co-nominator? It appears that this user and the nominator have contributed similar amounts to the article.
  • Nice of you to ask, but I'm really not fussed (I've never bothered to nominate articles I've taken to GA on to FAC, anyway). As you noticed, Isento was kind enough to mention my contributions above, and that's in keeping with his generosity throughout. We gave each other plenty of space and it's surprised me how much I enjoyed the collaboration. As for whether the article's ready for FAC, I've not read it in a while and Isento's been very busy in my absence. I saw him introducing some style points that I know he prefers, and thought it best to look away. No criticism: he's the one putting in the work, after all. Only lingering concern I have is the introduction of serial commas and spaced em dashes just recently, because British English usage does generally favour a) not using serial commas and b) setting dashes as spaced ens, which is what we had before. JG66 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serial commas removed, dashes unspaced as well. isento (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know the dashes are all unspaced now – that's what I'm saying. We had spaced ens before you recently changed them all to unspaced ems. Not only is the former style much more common in British English – and this is an album by a very English band and a key work of '60s Swinging London – but it's the style that still appears in titles in the citations and sources. It's also the style universally adopted for Personnel lists, and it's the style hardcoded into via= in cite web. If there was a concern that the source/attribution in quote boxes is preceded by unspaced em, we could always lose those dashes altogether; it's hardly as if readers would miss that the attribution is a separate element from the quoted text (given the juicy quote marks) and as I remember mentioning, not one of the examples in the Template:Quote box documentation includes an introductory dash anyway. JG66 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • My mistake; I misread your comment. The dashes are now spaced again. isento (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very kind, thanks. As you've seen, I went ahead and changed the (long) ems back to the shorter ens. JG66 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yikes. Now I have to undo what I did to my other FAs lol. isento (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: This seems fine. I checked a few sources (as far as Google previews would let me) and didn't find any issues apart from one very minor one. In terms of a full source check, it may be worth looking at one or two more a little later in the review, but there is nothing that concerns me in terms of accurate usage or close paraphrasing. Also, while I'm not especially knowledgable about the Rolling Stones, the list of sources is impressive, and looks to contain most of what I would expect in an article like this. (However, there might be a huge standard work missing, and I'd be none the wiser!)
  • The one minor issue: "Pop historian Richard Havens attributed the US LP's chart success in part to its inclusion of "Paint It Black", which had topped the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks in June.": The source is a little more cautious than indicated here, describing the success of "Paint it Black" as "the perfect springboard to launch the album into the US charts". Not a big deal, but subtly different from what we are saying here.
    • I've revised it to be closer to the source. isento (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations: Glancing through, we make extensive use of quotations. I wonder if these could be paraphrased in at least some places? It becomes wearing to read long strings of quotations giving opinions.
    • Yes, I have paraphrased several now. isento (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section: This is a bit of an issue; at the moment, linked to the above point, this is just a list of quotations. There is no attempt at organising this section into something more coherent. The best way to see how this could be done would be to read WP:RECEPTION; at the moment, I think this falls some way short of the ideal, and for some reviewers, this would be grounds for an oppose.
    • I have revised it, including moving back a paragraph on discussion of lyrics that had been moved elsewhere. Should cohere more now. isento (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: Quite a few issues here. For example, we need to sort out WP:ENGVAR. I think it is safe to say that, according to MOS:TIES, an article on the Rolling Stones should use British English. While not a huge issue, there are several phrasings here that are not comfortable in British English. For example: "Through 1965", "the attention of American businessman Allen Klein" (in British English it is better to avoid the use of False titles, and this should be "the American businessman. There are numerous examples of this, such as "According to American musicologist David Malvinni"); "after Jagger met with the potential director" (no need for "with" in British English). This should be checked thoroughly. Also, just looking at the lead throws up a few prose concerns: "The album is considered" (begs the question "who is it considered by?" and is best avoided if possible, unless we want to keep using "critics considered"); "Aftermath saw the Stones incorporating" (the use of "saw" like this makes my eyes bleed. Why not just something like "The Stones incorporated..."); "Brian Jones emerged as a talented multi-instrumentalist, playing a variety of instruments" (close repetition of "instrumentalist... instruments" and saying that Jones was talented introduces an opinion using Wikipedia's voice). I would recommend that this article is copy-edited by an uninvolved editor who could iron out some of these glitches: I can't find evidence that anyone has copy-edited it before its nomination.
    • I have checked thoroughly and copy-edited, addressing the specific points you outlined as well as others. isento (talk)`
  • At the risk of overstaying my welcome ... I'd say the nationality of a musicologist can go, whereas Allen Klein's is important as an American manager to an English band becoming an increasingly international brand in 1965–66. With regard to false titles, I have seen this brought up in the past as a consideration of British English. But, as I've had others quote to me in the past, WP:TERSE – is the inclusion of "the" each time a necessary word? While I'm continually pushing Brit English where it's due, I'm just mindful that articles such as this – which mention various band members, additional musicians, studio staff, photographers and "scenesters", biographers and music critics, etc. – can soon become filled with the likes of "the drummer Charlie Watts", "the engineer Dave Hassinger", and how, to some readers, that can start to grate somewhat. JG66 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence structure: A quick glance suggests that we are overusing was/is constructions and the passive voice. While neither of these are huge crimes, I think some variety would make for a more comfortable read. "Was" is obviously unavoidable, but doing a Ctrl-F shows that perhaps some rewriting would be beneficial. Sarastro (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I've revised for variety. isento (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've seen these changes, which look good and have addressed my concerns. I've struck my leaning oppose and I hope to do a full read-through at some point in the next few days. Sarastro (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1:, if you have anything more to add, it would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well. isento (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer has gone MIA. isento (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards edit

Although never my favourite Stones' album, "Aftermath's" central contribution to the group's canon is well-established. It is a long album, which only just fitted on the vinyl (at least in the UK and with a significant resultant loss of volume). I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and thank the nominator and fellow editors for all their work. My issue is with all those quotations! They break the flow, contain numerous grammatical errors that would require [sic] to be added all over the place. Can't we paraphrase? The other issue with so many quotes is compliance with WP:ENGVAR. Logically, the article should use British English but some many quotes use American English. Paraphrasing would help resolve this. Lastly, I saw spaced em-dashes. Please check with WP:DASH for compliance. I am looking forward to seeing improvements to an otherwise excellent article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have since copy-edited, consolidated and paraphrased significantly, in accordance with the above reviewer's comments and my own findings. If you still find issues, please specify them for my attention. Thank you! isento (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards:, if you have anything new to add, in light of the improvements, it would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well. isento (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer has gone MIA. isento (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose flows much better now the quotations have been culled. I don't like the "in order to" here: "In the US, London delayed the album's release in order to market the Big Hits compilation but issued "Paint It, Black" as a single in May. It doesn't seem to fully explain their reason to delay the release of the album. Also, Sandy's points below need to be addressed. Despite this, I think this article meets the FA criteria and I support its promotion. Thank you for your hard work on this article – it's a joy to read.Graham Beards (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have revised it to say "in order to mark the Big Hits compilation first", to indicate why. isento (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Image review by Nikkimaria
*Don't use fixed px size
  • The FURs for the two infobox covers are identical - I'd suggest adding some justification for including both rather than just one or the other
  • File:Mick-Jagger-1965-Turku.jpg: source link is dead, missing publication details, and what is the status of this image in the US? Also I'm not convinced this would not qualify as an artistic photo
    • I have updated the description and license, verifying it was a non-artistic photo taken of Jagger while he was at a press conference and that the archival website hosting the image marks them as CC by 4.0, which I added to the file page. isento (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where and when is this believed to have been first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Keith-Richards-1965.jpg: source link is dead, missing publication details, and what is the status of this image in the US? Same with File:Brian-Jones-1965.jpg
  • File:Londons_Carnaby_Street,_1966.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, can more specific tags be added?
    • I added a US-PD tag. isento (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where and when is this believed to have been first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the US-PD tag. I am not knowledgeable about these matters, and doubtful more specific tags can be added. The Archives website makes it clear Flickr-uploaded images from them without known copyright restrictions can be "reused without permission in any format for purposes of research, private study or education (non-commercial use) only." isento (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately while Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, images with an NC restriction are not considered "free" for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aftermath_LP_back.jpg: what gives the uploader the right to release this image?
  • Not certain that the Rolling Stone cover is simple enough to be copyright-ineligible - I've posted a request for opinions here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @Nikkimaria:, I have removed all the images with questionable licensing -- the black-and-white headshots of Jagger, Richards and Jones, the black-and-white photo of the band in concert, and the Rolling Stone magazine cover -- and replaced them with Jagger and Richards (cropped).png and Carnaby Street, London in 1968.jpg. Please let me know if they have any issues. isento (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the images check out now? isento (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support from AppleWormBoy edit

@Isento: It looks like every worry that I would've potentially had with the article has been resolved from other Wikipedians' comments. Nice job. — AppleWormBoy (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Comments by Aoba47
* I am uncertain if studio album requires a link in the lead.
  • I would disagree, but it is up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the infobox, since the US cover caption includes the record label, do you think the same should be done for the UK cover caption for consistency (i.e. UK version by Decca Records)?
    • The original release's information takes precedent already in the rest of the infobox, per Template:Infobox album#Released and Template:Infobox album#Label - the UK date and UK label occupy the "Released" and "Label" fields. Adding the label to the caption would be a bit redundant. Also, the cover mentions the label - Decca - on the lower left corner. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable. Just wanted to clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (Along with his instrumental textures, the Stones incorporated a wider range of chords and stylistic elements), do you mean "their instrumental textures" as this part is referring to "the Stones". If you are referring to the previous sentence, I would say "Along with Jones' instrumental textures" instead.
  • In this part (an LP that Oldham later described as having), I would link LP.
  • I would link riff in this part, (transformed the piece by providing its central riff), as some readers may know the word, but not fully understand the concept.
  • For this part, (Citing individual songs, Rolling Stone describes Aftermath as), I would link Rolling Stone.
    • The magazine is already linked in the section's first paragraph. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying this. I somehow missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the link for "Mother's Little Helper" from this part, (the Stones express a more compassionate attitude towards women in "Mother's Little Helper",) to here (music-hall ragas ('Mother's Little Helper'), strange) since it is an earlier instance that the song is mentioned.
  • A link for raga may be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with that style/type of music.
  • For this part (kind of pop music comparable to their contemporaries The Kinks), should it be "the Kinks" instead of "The Kinks"? The article has "the Rolling Stones" instead of "The Rolling Stones" and "the Who" instead of "The Who" so I would think "the" would not capitalized here for consistency's sake.
    • Thank you for pointing that out. I have made it lower-case. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the "upcoming" word choice for this part (as their manager's proposed title for the band's upcoming Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) compilation) since the album has obviously been released already at this point. Would something like "then upcoming" work or is that too cumbersome? I could be over-thinking it though as I am sure readers would understand from context that this album is no longer upcoming.
    • I have revised it as "the band's March compilation album Big Hits". isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a super random question so apologies in advance, but while reading the part on the Could You Walk on the Water? title, I could not help but think of the More popular than Jesus remark made in the same year by John Lennon of the Beatles. They both are obviously referencing religion, but I was struck by the sentence on London Records' fear of the Christian response. Did that have anything to do the backlash from the Lennon's comment or is it more of a general concern (as I am sure these ideas were discussed by record labels before the Lennon statements)? I was just curious if there was some relation between the two.
    • I could not find anything reliable online relating the two. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this part, (was released the same day in the US as a single with "Lady Jane" as the B-side), I would add a link to B-side.
  • I have a question about the Appalachian dulcimer image. I am uncertain how helpful the image would be to someone completely unfamiliar with the instrument, so would a different image be more beneficial? Both of these images (File:Dulcimer (UP).jpg and File:Dulcimershapes.jpg) from the related Wikipedia article have a more detailed view of the instrument in my opinion. I can understand not wanting to include an image of someone playing the image as it would be distracting. This could also be me over-thinking it, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • Well those images have the instrument standing upright, which is not how it is typically played. And one of them has several dulcimers, without a significant difference of detail from the current photo that would aid the reader - from my non-expert eyes it immediately struck me as some kind of guitar-like instrument, which is what a zither instrument essentially is. I think the link to the article should suffice. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably a difference of opinion. Something about the composition, specifically the tight crop, throws me off, but it is still a good picture. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Surprisingly enough, I have only heard "Paint It Black" from this album, and I was introduced to the song through the Ciara cover. I will have to check out the album sometime in the future. You have done a wonderful job with the article. Let me know if any of my comments need clarification. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, they were very helpful. And I hope you check out the album, but I would recommend listening to the album's version on The Rolling Stones in Mono - the ABKCO re-releases have a questionable reputation among audiophiles. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro edit

Although I don't have much experience reviewing FACs, I've been periodically observing you and JG66's expansions and I definitely it's much better off than it was a year ago. Since you asked, I thought I'd give a few comments or concerns I have. I also have not read any of the comments above so my apologies if I ask things that have already been resolved above:

  • Should you change "UK version" and "US release" in the infobox to the same word for consistency? Like "UK cover" and "US cover" or something like that?
  • Per Template:Infobox song#Parameters, the word "Studios" should not be in the infobox (shorten to just RCA)
  • I think release dates should be mentioned befroe recording dates in the lead (as the second sentence). It feels off to me knowing when it was recorded before its release date
  • AllMusic should not be italicized
  • I think refs in the chart table would look better by the charts themselves and not the positions; seems crowded being in the position col

Rest looks great. Fantastic job on this! – zmbro (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro:, Thank you. I have resolved your concerns, with the exception of mentioning release dates before the recording dates. While the standard on Wikipedia appears to be doing just that, in this case the release dynamic is more complex and works better in the prose if transitioned to later, rather than overwhelming the reader upfront with the complexities of the UK vs US releases. isento (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Makes sense. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG edit

Comments from SandyGeorgia
Perhaps someone will clean up the errors in the citations and references before I get to the rest of my review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, it was merely three instances of italics appearing in the website parameter of AllMusic citations, which had been done so in response to the above reviewer's issue with AllMusic and italicization. I fixed it, but it was nothing to prohibit a review of the article. isento (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apology and explanation: seriously, the dog woke me up in the middle of the night, with an extended altercation, and while awake, I decided to scan FAC. I saw the redlinked problems, and knew I would be busy most of today, would not be able to do a more thorough review quickly, and entered a "not yet". I am free for the day now, and will dig in next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually start reviewing at the bottom of the article, as few make it all the way down there:

  • Why are classic rock and album era listed in See also? That is, are they really needed, and can they not be worked in to the article? In theory, FAs are fully developed so we expect to find only things in See also that can't be incorporated (like Lists).
  • Note 1: with the Rolling Stones said to be taking starring roles ... "said to be taking" passive voice.
  • Please go through and check all hyphens to WP:ENDASHes, and p. to pp. needs, sample: Perone 2012, p. 95-96.
    • Done. Perone was the only one incorrect. isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple instances of text being sandwiched between quote boxes and images. Repositioning one or the other should solve this.
    • I only see an instance of this in "Marketing and sales", which I have repositioned. isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a 6,000-word article with a very short lead; there are sections in the article that aren't summarized to the lead, and it seems that more could be added (your choice).
    • I have included more about the Stones' newfound wealth and Beatle-rivalling fame to be representative of "Background". Apart from "Title and packaging", which is much "he said, she said", the lead seems to summarize the most important parts. isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose (picking one section only at random)
  • Jagger, who had been accused of misogyny in the past, ... can you be accused in the future? Redundant?
    • I clarified it as "before the album". isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is said by Margotin and Guesdon to be avenging real-life grievances with the songs, using "language and imagery that had the power to hurt". "Stupid Girl", which assails the "supposed greed and facile certitudes of women", is speculated by the writers to indirectly criticise Shrimpton.
    • Margotin and Gueson said that Jagger, who had been accused of misogyny, was avenging real-life grievances with the lyrics, using "language and imagery that had the power to hurt". They speculated that "Stupid Girl" indirectly criticised Shrimptom and assailed the "supposed greed and facile certitudes of women" ... ? I am just not seeing why the sentence is not cast more directly.
      • I revised the first sentence, but kept the second as is, to emphasize the start of songs being discussed individually and for variety in passive/impassive voice. isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • express a more compassionate attitude ... did they seriously use the word compassionate there ?

These are mere nitpicks; I read only enough to see the FAC should not be held up for me, but I would feel much better if either Graham Beards or Sarastro1 had re-visited, as both of them have better knowledge of the topic, and better prose than I do. If they are satisfied, I am satisfied. Nothing I have raised is significant, although hopefully most of it can be addressed. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I have addressed it with reasonings above or performed new revisions for what I agreed required fixing. Sarastro1 has largely been absent the past few weeks, but Graham has just offered his support above. isento (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me ... sorry again for my middle-of-the-night foray. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for the support. isento (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aftermath_(Rolling_Stones_album)/archive1&oldid=945504570"