Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Jagger/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) 23 July 2022 [1].

Mick Jagger

edit
Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about Sir Michael Philip Jagger -- most commonly known by his stage name Mick Jagger. While studying to become an economist, he found success in a little known band he co-founded called the Rolling Stones in '62, which went on to be the most commercially successful band in history...with him at the helm. AllMusic and MSN have called him "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" and Billboard has called him "the rock and roll frontman". He is best known for being the trailblazing lead singer of the Rolling Stones and half of the Jagger–Richards songwriting team, one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in history. According to Steven Van Zandt, Jagger's acceptance on pop radio "was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else."

He received a knighthood in 2003, has been inducted into two music halls of fame (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and UK Music Hall of Fame), and even had a 19-million-year-old species of water nymph named after him. Jagger's style has been studied by academics and his vocal delivery and his sense of pitch and melody have baffled other singers. He has either directly or indirectly (through the Stones) served as inspiration for many artists, including Taylor Swift, Jack White, Steven Tyler, and Iggy Pop; in 2011, Maroon 5 released "Moves like Jagger", a song inspired by his unique dancing style. Despite all this (there is much more I didn't cover) and the immense success he has achieved in life, he didn't let the fame get to his head; the late Charlie Watts described him as "the least egotistical person" who would "do what's right for the band". I believe that this article is ready to be considered for featured article status and hope that you will support it along with me. Seeing as I am too late with this nomination for this year, I hope to have this on the main page to commemorate his 80th birthday in July 2023. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

edit

Several comments to start this assessment.

(1) On my 13 inch screen there are several problems with image sandwiches; these should be dealt with and addressed.

  • For the left-right image pairs in your article, that is, when you have a left aligned image immediately follwed by a right aligned image, there appear to be image sandwiches in the 1960s section, in the 2000s section flowing into the 2010s section, and the Popular culture section. Let me know if it needs more pinpointing on your screen. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to 'all on the right side' format does not always work, since it sometimes leads to image 'bunching' on the right side; that is, when a sequence of several images carry-over into the next section where they don't really belong. The approach which other editors sometimes find successful is to deal with the left-right image pairs by trying to separate them by an extra paragraph of narrative text if the section is large enough to do this. Its sometimes possible to simply move one of the images in the image pairs down one paragraph in the section or up one paragraph in the section, in order to remove the image sandwich. In some cases, sometimes you may need to prune some images out. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved them around a bit for the 1960s section as a test. Does that help any? I might try replacing both of those with another (singular) image from the '60s if I can find a suitable one. I wonder if we should remove the photos from the personal life section? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ErnestKrause: I have removed an image from the 1960s section and replaced the other per the above image review section. Do you think we should remove the photos from the personal life section? They aren't adding that much to the article and that would also help with the crowding. As for the 2000s image overflowing, I do see what you mean. Hmm...I think that both images are important to keep...would reducing the size of that image potentially help you figure? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image sandwiches on my size screen seem better now; you might want to double check with Nikkimaria on how it looks on her screen. Regarding your use of multiple image formats, did you try the Bianca and Jerry Hall image in landscape mode for comparison; seeing the two of them side by side might be an interesting feature to see. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I have now done that. How does it look to you now? @Nikkimaria: do you still see the image sandwiching on your display or has that been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Nikkimaria on the image in the 2010s, I'm agreeing with her and it should be pushed down one paragraph lower in that section on the left side. Regarding the landscape mode for Bianca and Jerry Hall, it looks improved over the portait mode version. It would be nice to see some comment on his wealth added into the article; if he is supporting philantrophies and charities as you state in the article, then readers will want to see how much money he is using to support them. See this article [2] and see this book [3] for Jagger's wealth. I'll try to have something done by way of a source analysis for your article by early next week if that is useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I moved the image down a bit and found some better references than an illustration book (The Times, namely) and added 2021 wealth estimates. How does that look for you now? The downside is that neither of the sources you had or the two I found specify how much he gives to charity. He is very much a private individual offstage. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The lead section could use a little more summary from this fairly long article. Possibly some more about the distinction of his solo career and of his career as lead singer of The Rolling Stones.

(3) Business career profits and commercial success numbers would be nice to see more of in this article. How profitable were his mechandising attempts over the years? How profitable was his solo career? How profitable was it in comparison to his career and profits from The Rolling Stones? Is it known just how large his commercial success has been when royalties and everything else is taken in account?

  • Some of the individual album articles on Wikipedia and concert articles on Wikipedia do speak about profitability, marketing, promotion, etc.; also, are you saying that there is no information about what percentage of his wealth comes from his efforts with The Rolling Stones as opposed to everything else he does? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to mention a networth of $360 million, if I recall correctly, but it was removed as being not exactly relevant during the peer review. The only net worth mention that I have seen is that number by The Richest and other sites of questionable reliability for an FA. I have never seen a breakdown of percentages. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to retract part of that. The Richest now includes a breakdown, but it stops at 2016 (there have been tours in the last 6 years) and the intro appears to have been written when A Bigger Bang was their last tour, meaning it is closing in on 20 years out of date. That said, I am not confident about The Richest's reliability for an FA and neither was Aoba47. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to confirm reading that his wealth in over $300 million, and that its useful to the article to include this. It means that he is not on the verge of bankruptcy, that he is actually very wealthy, and that he is not suffering from insolvency in any way. Aoba can of course offer his views on this as you have pinged him above. It looks like useful data to know about Jagger. Regarding profits from individual concert tours and individual album sales, this is also useful; Wikipedia has many articles on this subject such as the 3 articles about Bridges to Babylon and the related tour. Where did his money come from questions seem relevant to an article about a person like Jagger who has accumulated this much wealth. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Private life and progeny. My understanding is that Jagger's family of children and grand-children is rather large, exceeding 2-3 dozen at this point and prominently discussed in the press. Could some more be added in this article? How many children does he recognize as his own? How may grand-children does he recognize? Also, how many children have been alleged to be his? There were several high profile court cases which disputed these facts; can they be added to the article here?

  • We don't typically name minors. From what I've found he only has one great-grandchild and I don't see why he wouldn't recognize grandchildren etc. "Two or three dozen", based on reliable sources, is also a massive overstatement; I count 14 total kids (great/grand/otherwise included). Do you have any specific examples of court cases? Of grandchildren he doesn't recognize? This section is already fairly long and complicated and this seems a tad excessive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC); updated with realization 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have found on illegitimate kids is a single article in The Globe and Mail about a theatre(?) performance of a parody of Jagger with a fictitious "Jack" who is a "member of that ever-expanding, worldwide club made up of Mick Jagger's illegitimate children." That article isn't about real life and I haven't so far found any (real life) mentions in reliable sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's useful to read here. The reliable sources I've just searched using the Google engine seem fairly consistent that he recognizes: "Mick Jagger has eight children with five different women, five grandchildren, and is a great-grandfather." For example here: [4]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is always important at Wikipedia. If there are reliable sources for a rock star's life and his girlfriends then it should be included in this article. From his various book-length biographers, Jagger is not portrayed as an innocent touring the world. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is indeed important, I never said that it wasn't. The article mentions his adultery already in the personal life section. If you have any specific examples in mind that pass WP:DUE, I am all ears and you are welcome to add them. Going back to my actual question, I added mention of the parody to the "In popular culture" section and the number of grandchildren/great-grandchildren to the relationships section. I was also asking about if you had sources for ones he (allegedly) doesn't recognize, not the ones he does; it is already established well in reliable sources and in the article already for the ones he does recognize. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Adding #5 by way of Source review. There appears to be an issue of whether the Bibliography and References sections are comprehensive for FAC when they are compared to the article and Bibliography in the GA for The Rolling Stones. Much of the biography of Mick Jagger is covered in the many published books about The Rolling Stones, though the list of books in this article for Mick Jagger is not matching up with the sources used in The Rolling Stones Wikipedia article. Has a check been done to ensure that the comments and information about Mick Jagger covered in the Rolling Stones Wikipedia article are also adequately covered in this Mick Jagger article along with the sources and citations which appear in the group's separate Wikipedia article? For example, in the Early History section of The Rolling Stones article it is stated that "In the mid-1950s, Jagger formed a garage band with his friend Dick Taylor; the group mainly played material by Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry...", while giving credit to the book by Nelson which does not appear in this Mick Jagger article. The same for the other sections of The Rolling Stones article and the many citations and sources there which deal with Mick Jagger directly by name. Have you done this check of sources and citations in the group's article and compared them to this Mick Jagger article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have looked through The Rolling Stones and ported some sources and content over. My concern, though, is that we don't want to essentially clone that article entirely (there is a reason there are two articles and {{main}} is in use). They don't need to match up for those sections by sources or verbatim, at the very least, and can be more shallow versions. That said, I have added a few thousand more bytes of content from the main Stones article. Does that look any better to you? Any areas that jump out as needing more? Willing to work with you on this. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching you add the materials over the last day or two with your positive results. The main insight for doing that, I think, is to single out the material which focuses on Mick Jagger when using the books about The Rolling Stones. It looks like you've been adding sfn sources to supplement your previous list and it looks more complete now. Nikkimaria looks like she is ok with your images and passing based on images, and I think I'm ok with your upgrades to the sources and cites in the article and am now going to support the promotion of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thank you for the review! It is greatly appreciated. You might want to make the support vote in bold so that it better leaps out at coordinators? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit

I am posting this as a placeholder. I will post a review once ErnestKrause is done with their comments. Aoba47 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It looks like Nikkimaria is answering the part about image sandwiching, and I'm planning to switch over to look at the source review sometime early next week if all goes well. If you have any FAC comments then you can add them at this time without waiting if that works for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. I will look through the article tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to do a review today, but I will try to do it tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure that I catch everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much! It is very helpful, as always. Please see the above where I've either addressed all points or asked for clarification. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "Jagger has had two genera named after him, Jaggermeryx naida and Aegrotocatellus jaggeri. "If I understand this correctly, only one is a genus, the other being a species.
@Wehwalt: Good catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the birthdays of Jagger's parents and brother?
Probably not. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the RS's first number one UK singles are significant enough to cover in main text, rather than just a footnote.
I agree. Where would you recommend putting that in the prose?
Maybe start a new paragraph with "The group played songs by American rhythm and blues artists like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, " and then describe the two covers that became #1. Then pick up again with how they were urged to write their own songs in a new paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk)
That worked, thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, he learned to play guitar" I assume after going back two sentences that we are talking about the south of France. But given I had to go back two sentences to figure out what was meant, some better formulation might do.
Changed. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Director Alejandro Jodorowsky approached him in the same year to play the role of Feyd-Rautha[148] " This had no connection with the version in the 1980s with Sting in that role?
Based on the LA Times writing "Herbert's book would eventually be broguht to the screen in 1984 by David Lynch" and the surrounding context, no, no relation. Jodorowsky's project fizzled. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCarthy predicted the film would fare better once released to video than in its limited theatrical runs. (Unnecessary detail imo)[164] " Some commentary here? If I could put my oar in, I'd say I'd agree unless you tie up whether it did in fact do better on video.
I thought that that was your commentary, but then saw it in the article. Wow. Not sure how that ended up there and it wasn't mine. Huh. Anyhow, based on data from The-numbers.com, that estimate was well off the mark. Do you think that that should be referenced in the article or just drop the sentence? I've already cut the parenthesis bit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger has been married and divorced once,[170][171] and has had other relationships, resulting in eight children with five women, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.[172]" This could be read to say that his children were with the aid of his descendants. I might also toss in an "as of 2016" as the statistics might have changed by now.
How would you propose clarifying it? I've tossed in an "as of 2016". --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "... five women. He also has, as of 2016, five grandchildren ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works! Implemented. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good idea to give exact birthdates for non-notable people?
Probably not. Do you think a year by itself would be appropriate for timeline sake? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger's father and daughters Karis and Elizabeth were in attendance." Since you can be "in attendance" on royalty, I might say "present" instead.
Changed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2000 film Almost Famous, set in 1973, refers to Jagger: "Because if you think Mick Jagger'll still be out there, trying to be a rock star at age 50 ... you're sadly, sadly mistaken."[221]" I'm a little dubious about this, cute as that line is, and as much as I love that movie, if it's only a "mentioned in" and there's no explanation of why it's relevant that he's mentioned.
He has similarly shared this view in the past, though he said 45 and said it two years after the year the show was set in. Source. I've added a bit more, but would also be okay cutting it or tweaking further. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it in but it's among my favorite films so I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN should be linked and I don't think it should be italicised.
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wehwalt! Could you please take a look at the theatrical vs video release point again? Otherwise I think I've covered everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

edit

Staking my place here as you requested. I should get to this in no time but if I don't say anything by the end of the week please ping me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: I don't mean to bug, but just following up as requested. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn glad you did. Give me half an hour – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't direct quotes always supposed to be sourced, even in the lead? Also, who said "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll", cuz I think by now that's more like a common statement
    I would agree with you on that. I was rather confused, as I distinctly remember seeing it, to find that that direct quote wasn't in either of the sources. I've removed it from quotation marks and restructured it in the body as it is still supported. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mention some films in the lead shouldn't you mention something like Freejack?
    What is your vision on how that would be included?
  • "and in 2004 into the UK Music Hall of Fame with the Rolling Stones" → "and into the UK Music Hall of Fame with the Rolling Stones in 2004."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the Van Zandt quote ending the lead. As it stands it'd need to have a source behind it but to me it seems off to end on a quote. Shouldn't it be more of a summary of his influence on pop culture as a whole?
    Changed it around. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo I'd add this: "When asked if he felt guilty about Jones's death, Mick Jagger told Rolling Stone in 1995: "No, I don't really. I do feel that I behaved in a very childish way, but we were very young, and in some ways we picked on him. But, unfortunately, he made himself a target for it; he was very, very jealous, very difficult, very manipulative, and if you do that in this kind of a group of people you get back as good as you give, to be honest. I wasn't understanding enough about his drug addiction. No one seemed to know much about drug addiction. Things like LSD were all new. No one knew the harm. People thought cocaine was good for you." here. Found on Brian Jones
    Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no mention of GHS, It's Only RnR and BaB? Surely Jagger's role in those warrants some mention. Also, the second para in 1970s seems out of order; in fact, all the 1970s section seems to bounce around chronologically
    @Zmbro: What is GHS? BaB? A lot of films were removed with this edit fairly recently by the user YouCanDoBetter. I'll work at re-ordering the section. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should be a good start. Hope this helps :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: I believe that I have now addressed (or at least responded to) everything you mentioned. I think it's ready for you to take another look. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will this weekend when I have time to spare :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in one of my recent edits, maintain consistency between number formats (several No. # vs number ##) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I believe that this is ready for another look. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro, how's this looking? No pressure to support or oppose, just checking you're all done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I've had a pretty busy week. Looked it over and happy to support. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, zmbro! It is greatly appreciated. Courtesy ping to Ian Rose. TheSandDoctor Talk 15:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandDoctor, I think we're about ready to close but the sentence Jagger and Richards lost contact with each other when they went to different schools should be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Resolved. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

edit

Apologies that I don't have a lot of time for reviews, but I have left some feedback below.

Just a few notes, hopefully some help. SatDis (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I've responded to everything above. Thank you so much for your review! --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for addressing those comments. The fact that I struggle to find any more suggestions for improvements within the article mean that it is excellently written, researched and sourced. I will support the nomination. SatDis (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Thank you for your review! It is greatly appreciated. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Pausing there; will resume once these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I appreciate the review so far. I believe that it is ready for you to continue. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor issues remaining above. I'll have a look at reliability and links shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of the above has now been addressed. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers now refer to this version.

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think it's now ready for another look. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes all look good. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the review and for taking the time to do this! It is very greatly appreciated. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! You might consider doing a FAC review or two in return -- you're a good writer and we always need good writers to review. Or even do a source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, looks like you have a citation error -- see [50]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Mike Christie. Fixed. The casing was wrong in one of the ref name calls. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:20, 22 July 2022 (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/Mick_Jagger/archive1&oldid=1100049257"