Talk:Tumbling Dice/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 06:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

More than happy to pick it up for a review! Had I noticed the GAN earlier, I would have picked it up earlier itself. Will check it out after school, today. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Thank you! Just so you know, I have two GA nominations (this and Mick Jagger) being reviewed at the same time, so may require more time to respond to any questions etc (but will do the best I can), okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I see Ritchie got to that article before I could! Yeah, buddy, please feel free to take as much time as you like! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The second infobox is awesome! Just that it is drifting into the references section. It could be moved slightly up.

 Done Added a {{clear}} template at the bottom of the Notes section and that appears to have done the trick. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) Awesome! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• The lead should be expanded a bit.

What would you juggest added Adityavagarwal? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead should have a bit about each section, so I would suggest to have a bit of each section in the lead (I think it is very short as of now). Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work with the lead now, what do you think of it? I realize that it is short so I merged it into a single paragraph (from two) to aid in its appearance and added some content to it - also, the article itself is not that long, therefore not requiring as big a lead as, say, The Rolling Stones. With that said, I will work to expand it a bit more. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have added a bit from every section now, what do you think of it Adityavagarwal? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Marking as  Done per the below. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• "... whoever was around at night" Should it be "...whoever was around that night" instead?

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• that." " He concluded, " 'Tumbling Dice' " was written to fit Keith's riff. It's about gambling and love, an old blues track." Are there extra double quotes? :P

 Done Yes, that is the case, my automatic instinct was that it was a quote of a quote, but after reviewing it in the article itself, that was not the case. Double quote removed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Was really confused lol. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The single's B-side was "Sweet Black Angel", a song written by Jagger about Black Panther activist Angela Davis." This needs a citation. Probably this?

 Done You are correct, thanks for the ref! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Very welcome. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Lastly, the reference formats for books do not need the date and month. Only year is enough, and ISBN 10s should be converted to ISBN 13s per WP:ISBN (I am fixing this point in the mean time).

For that I blame the automated referencing tool built into the visual editor as that is what I use to generate references (if it fails, then I look up the APA way and put it in myself). How would you suggest converting to the 13 format ISBN? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the automatic formatting tool is not consistent. This converter could be used to convert the 10s to 13s. Just type in the ISBN which is in 10 (the one which does not start with "978") and it would convert it to 13 (starts with "978"). Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: I was about to convert them, but Wikipedia does not like the 13 one, turning it into a red link? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In the edit mode, it might be showing as a red link, but it actually is no more red once you save it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Okay, that should be all done now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks great! Just check out expanding the lead point. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, marking this point as  Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A very very solid article! So wonderfully written, and this is all I got. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Please let me know before passing this article, I would like to request some more review if at all possible in regards to citations. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks good to me now! If you liked, I would give it a more detailed source review today. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Could you please do some more review in regards to inline citations? Do you think that there are enough of them or? Thanks for all of your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

For an FAC? Yeah we need some work on it. Would specify a detailed source review as soon as I get home. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Didn't mean FAC exactly, meant for GA. Thanks, I await the review - am happy for anything to improve article quality. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Updated the infoboxes using the current Template:Infobox song#Parameters documentation (easier than listing here). A couple of other points: quotes are not italicized (changed), "the" in band names is not capitalized mid-sentence, major geographical areas are not linked (unlinked France, British Columbia), and it's not clear that the "Other versions" meet WP:SONGCOVER. Happy to discuss if needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Thanks for the link, will look through the documentation. So quotes should be italicized? I don't recall doing that in other GA noms I have done, so this is new to me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: To clarify: The quotes were italizicized, I changed using {{quote}} (also changed midsentence "The Rolling Stones" to "the Rolling Stones"). Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification. I have added more parameters to the first inbox, what do you think of it now? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Fine. Another minor point: it appears that TD was released a month before EOMS, so technically it is not "from the album", but later included on it (I did say minor). It's up to you. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Good catch, I added mention of that. As for the other versions sections, are you referring to the whole section (Ronstadt inclusive) or just the list? Which references do you find concerning? LA Times mentioned one and a book mentioned the Ronstadt version. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I was thinking of Gaslight Anthem, Gray, Goldberg, MH, JJ, & BJ. Their refs just confirm that they recorded it, while SONGCOVER includes "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" (my emphasis). The idea is that not all covers are noteworthy and may be seen as trivia. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Those listed versions have been removed, what do you think of the three that are left? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Fine, but perhaps convert to prose and add a bit from the reviews (I might also rename the sections: "Cover versions" (or "Renditions by other artists"), then "Linda Ronstadt version", then "Other versions"). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Section structure has been reorganized per your request/suggestion and I have converted the bulleted list to prose. What do you think of it now Ojorojo? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice! You've certainly addressed all my points. It's a great song – I'm glad I could help. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice is indeed a great song, one of my favourites - and I like most songs the Stones have written. Thank you for pitching into this review. I welcome your thoughts on the Mick Jagger GA review which is currently under way. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal Ojorojo has added to the review and I am now comfortable with it. If you wish to proceed with the source review, I am more than happy to but otherwise I am happy to let you pass this as you voiced you were going to. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ojorojo for you inputs! @TheSandDoctor: I was checking out the sources in the mean time. They look very good to me. I have placed three citation need tags, so that would be it for the sources part! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal Is this how I would go about citing the recording of the song itself or? (I am asking as you put a citation needed tag by a bit talking directly of the song content.) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That would do, or even the normal souce citing (with source authors names if possible, just like I have added them right now) would do. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Well, I have now replaced all the {{citation needed}} templates with citations. The "Wild Horses" citation isn't the best - but I don't currently have access to the book cited in the previous section (It's only rock 'n' roll : the ultimate guide to the Rolling Stones) as the library does not have it nor does google books, which I have a feeling does/might state about the single. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:55, 2 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:

Thanks Adityavagarwal! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: You are welcome! Please feel free to ask me for any future GAs. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Adityavagarwal, will probably take you up on it some time. :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)