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]
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
    @Nikkimaria: How would you recommend addressing this? Removing some images? Are there any particular sections of concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one option, but there are others - for example use of multiple image templates. The worst example at the moment is the pop-culture section. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Good idea. Used a multiple image template for the pop-culture section. How does that (section) look now to you? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stones_ad_1965-2.jpg: contrary to the tag, there is a copyright notice in the source (page 4)
    That is a good catch. We can bring this local to remedy that? Do you have any idea who would hold the copyright? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to bring it locally we'd either need it to be free in the US, or have a feasible fair-use claim. The problematic tag is for US status so that would need sorting whether to leave where it is or bring locally as free. As for who would hold copyright, not sure, but you could see if it's listed in the copyright catalogue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the catalogue from that year or surrounding it. Could that potentially mean that it wasn't listed in the states? link --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't draw that conclusion from just that search - listings can be a bit "creative" in their titling. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Image replaced with File:Rolling Stones op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 916-7422.jpg. I was tempted to bring this one in (at a reduced quality and smaller) but discovered a free one so went that route. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:19, 28 June 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]
  • On my screen there is minor sandwiching in 2000s/2010s, otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you. I don't remember if Template:Clear is permissible in articles. If it is, would that help? Do you think that this now passes the image review? I believe I've addressed your listed concerns? TheSandDoctor Talk 05:57, 30 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.

  • What would you suggest adding? I think the lede summarizes the article fairly well? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seemed that the third paragraph in the lead section could add a little more... there's nothing you could add about his solo career versus his appearances with the group? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the third paragraph of the lead section to include more legacy/honours related content. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(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?

  • This information doesn't seem readily available for the stones or his solo career. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Are you aware of a better source for that figure or the other financials you propose, though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 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]
  • (edit conflict) By "That's useful to read here" do you mean that that parody should be included (presumably in the "In popular culture" section)? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 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]
  • I just discovered that for some reason my Newspapers.com subscription through TWL expired despite, from what I can tell, supposedly being valid still; I've requested a renewal. --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]
  • This is nitpick-y, but the lead and the article say Dartford, Kent and the infobox says Dartford, England. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, and they continue to collaborate musically. Are they still collaborating on music (i.e. in 2022 and beyond)? The Jagger–Richards article makes it seem like that is more of a past thing rather than a current and potential feature venture.
    This is ongoing. I changed it to "His ongoing songwriting partnership with Keith Richards". Does that address your concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, He has been married and divorced once, would it be worthwhile to mention Bianca Jagger by name since she is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article?
    Probably, yes. Just not sure how to word that in with the current structure. Add in when they married/divorced? "He has been married and divorced once to Bianca Jagger, and has..." would read funny to me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, and I debated on including this in my original comment, I found the "married and divorced once" wording to be a little odd as it places the emphasis on the fact that he was married/divorced once. I would expect that wording more so for an individual married/divorced multiple times where the amount would get the focus, but since he has only been married/divorced once, it seems a little odd to put the focus on the number rather than the person he married, even more so since she has her own article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: I reworded it. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better to me. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the value of putting citations in the middle of a sentence (i.e. to clarify what is being cited by what citation), there are a few spots where I believe this impairs readability. Having a citation right after "a former gymnast," and "was a hairdresser" awkwardly cuts up the sentence and distracts from the prose in my opinion. In both cases, there is a citation, three words, and then immediately another citation before the sentence continues. I'd move these citations to the end of the sentence.
    Moved in those two instances. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks much better now. I do not know if this is required for a FA, but I'd put the citations in numeric order. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, an excerpt from Shelley's poem Adonaïs, why not use Percy Bysshe Shelley's full name?
    That is a good point. I've changed it to be the full name now. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life is linked twice in the article.
    Good catch! I've removed the second link. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this sentence, Jagger portrays an English art dealer-collector and patron in Giuseppe Capotondi's thriller The Burnt Orange Heresy (2020)., needs to be a separate, one-sentence paragraph.
    Merged it with the paragraph above. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better to me. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make sure to archive the web citations to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 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]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left responses to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I think I have now addressed everything you raised. Please let me know if you see anything else. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, Aoba47! TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 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?
  • I changed my mind it's good without that – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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]
  • The Stones albums Goats Head Soup and Black and Blue. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rearranged the Some Girls stuff. Try adding Emotional Rescue after that (as a continuation of the disco thing) and try to find a source that says Jagger and Richards led that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of Tattoo You either. If you don't want mention Emotional Rescue that's honestly ok but Tattoo You was a massive seller (I mean "Start Me Up" c'mon). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. "Start Me Up" is one of my favs haha. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Tina Turner of "It's Only Rock and Roll" link the song
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the Stones released Dirty Work in March 1986, Jagger–Richards relations" how about "Jagger's relations with Richards"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " this work was released on the band's 21st U.S. album" why are we only mentioning the US number and not the UK one?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why such little content on the 1990s? The Stones released two albums that decade so why no mention of them here?
    Expanded. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention "Living in a Ghost Town"?
    Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the reissue of GHS charted well and I remember seeing a few interviews with Jagger about it. Idk if that warrants a mention but it's just a thought
    Added. I have some reservations though about adding much more as it just then starts turning into a clone of The Rolling Stones. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure things are consistent. There's one instance of "the Telegraph" and another shortly after of "The Telegraph"
    I would say that's because the second instance starts a sentence and thus needs to be capitalized? --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we mention Brian Jones' death, shouldn't you mention Charlie's? Also, how's his relationship with Bill Wyman been since he left the Stones?
    Done re Charlie's death. I found this LA Times story about Wyman being the group's archivist but that they won't let him play with them anymore. Not really sure where that would fit in though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all those "as producer" credits have a source next to them
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:22, 14 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.

  • Is "rock & roll" commonly known with the ampersand? Because some mentions such as "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" show the word "and". Can that genre be wikilinked in any way?
    Per the lede sentence of Rock and roll, it is commonly written with the ampersand. In all but one of the term's occurrences in the article, it is a direct quotation from a written source with the ampersand. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gigs" - this is informal, I think.
    "Gig" means temporary work -- in this context a show. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atlantic Records to distribute the record (which had signed the Stones in the 1970s)." - to me, "who" sounds better, but I understand if that doesn't work.
    I believe "which" is the proper use here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sing ‘Satisfaction’ when" - should it have the quotation marks? ("Satisfaction")
    Ideally, yes, but that would break it out of the quote that it is in. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an idea: for the mentions of "number one, etc." on charts, could you use the no. template?
    That template seems odd to me in this context. I've taken a look at Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney (other FAs) for reference and that template isn't used and "number one" is always spelled out. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Mick Jagger Centre, Dartford" image crosses over to the next session, not sure if that should be fixed?
    The problem is that that section is small, the image is actually at the top of it. Do you think it would be better dragged up into the other subsection? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. It doesn't really fit into any other section, so it should be fine there. SatDis (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 km a day" looks a bit odd - could you remove the space or spell out kilometres in full?
    That was the literal quote, space included. Perhaps if we use square brackets we could replace it with the full word? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the article and can see the km was written with a space. Up to you if you would like to expand the word with square brackets. SatDis (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone else raises it, I think I will keep it how it is for now. I deliberately (before this comment was left) wikilinked to kilometres on the "km" text to pre-emptively avoid any potential confusion, but the more I look at it, the more I believe we should stay as true to the quote as possible. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the discography, is there a reason why UK and AUS both have references but US does not?
    Addressed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks much better! SatDis (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlie Watts, and Bill Wyman" - final two on the list so no comma needed, to match "Steven Tyler and Iggy Pop"?
    Addressed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • Missing the publisher for the book citation in [282].
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patell (in the sources section) has "p. 24"; is that deliberate? I don't see a chapter heading.
    Good catch; that doesn't appear that it was deliberate. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing an ISBN for Patell.
    Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for p./pp. errors in [16], [23], [45], and [79].
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an FA requirement, but suggest adding ref=none to the sub-bullets in [116] and [293] to avoid harv errors being shown to users with harv scripts.
    Good idea! Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare [284] and [93]; both are cites to Rolling Stone but the formatting is slightly different.
    This page is ancient enough that I have found some really weird/old ways of doing refs. Modernized that one. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fix looks good, but can you take a look through all the Rolling Stone cites? If you search for "Rolling Stone." (with the period) in the footnotes you'll see some have the date of the issue after the author name and some do not; I think this is just because those cites omit the issue date, which I would think should generally be included. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this has now been corrected. The ones left should be ones where there was no author listed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When are you using {{cite journal}} and when {{cite magazine}}? I would have expected StarPulse to use the latter, for example. There are some formatting differences which means they can't be treated as completely interchangeable; e.g. the magazine date is added to the title for {{cite magazine}}.
    Converted all but once instance of {{cite journal}} (which was an actual scientific journal). --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reasoning behind your use of the publisher parameter for {{cite news}}? I see it in a handful of citations (e.g. [213], [238]), but most don't have it (e.g. [222], [54]). I think the simplest consistency fix would be to use work= instead of publisher= in those cases.
    It was probably done by visual editor and not all by me. I've gone through and I think cleaned them all up.
  • Same question for {{cite web}} -- see e.g. [10] which uses publisher and [232] which uses work.
    See above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed just one -- [296]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, but FYI {{cite certification}} uses publisher, not website, so it's out of sync. I think that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a couple of cases -- officialcharts.com ([84], [85]. [120]), rollingstones.com (several) -- you use the domain name instead of the website title. Is there a reason to do these differently? I also see [108] where you use "Official Charts Company" instead of the domain name.
    I think I've converted them all. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • The full title for The Great Rolling Stones Drug Bust appears to be Butterfly on a Wheel: The Great Rolling Stones Drug Bust, from what I can see on the web.
    Addressed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [57] is a youtube video; I see that the publisher is reliable, but can we take the narrative by the participants as reliable? The voiceover just quotes from Smoke on the Water at one point.
    It's a news story that was televised by the look of it. Watching it through, it's a CBC News journalist interviewing the museum people about it, including one of the collections people. I don't see an issue with it? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- after looking again I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • ultimateclassicrock.com -- I can't find out anything about editorial policy on the site. It appears to be owned by Townsquare Media, which might be enough.
      • It was accepted on Paint It Black. That said, I've reduced it to just verifying the album number for Steel Wheels. Unfortunately, none of the other materials that I have appear to list the American album number for Steel Wheels; either the UK number is listed or they total everything ("According to" said it was their 34th album)...very annoying inconsistent. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I just spent a few minutes searching for something else that would support this. I found this Allmusic Stones discography, which includes live albums; am I right in thinking that Steel Wheels is the 21st U.S. studio album, not the 21st album overall? I'm open to using ultimateclassicrock.com if necessary for this, since Townsquare Media is a corporate entity, but want to check the numbering since AllMusic's list would make it the 27th album. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        US studio album, correct. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wynter Bee, People of the Day 2.
    • The My Fox Houston citation, [209], explicitly says it's just getting the info from the Daily Express, which is not a great source for things like showbiz rumours.
    • Starpulse, [288] -- I found an about page that claims millions of readers when the site was active, but I can't see if it's a corporate entity or just one person's website.
      • Replaced with a slight different (but shorter/not as great) quote from the Associated Press. The two seem to be along the same vein and mention 150 shows, so it kind of has me wondering if Starpulse and AP just picked slightly different spots of the same conversation or not. Has me sort of wondering... --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's Who [3] -- I believe this is regarded as unreliable as it often sources its information directly from the people listed, making it little better than a self-published source.
    • [20] -- appears to be a blog.
      • You are correct but, based on the page and the site about page, it appears to be an official site of the London School of Economics. The main about page for LSE also links to that blog. I don't see an issue with it being used here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        OK on using it for Jagger attending the LSE, but now that I look again at the sentence it supports, it seems there's uncited material. What supports "He and Richards moved into a flat in Edith Grove, Chelsea, London, with guitarist Brian Jones. While Richards and Jones planned to start their own rhythm and blues group, Jagger continued to study finance and accounting"? The blog post supports the last phrase only, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I have added The Independent for Edith Grove verification and the three members that shared the flat. Unfortunately, the Independent story doesn't appear to have a listed author but it does verify it. It's annoying how some publications don't bother with bylines. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You consistently abbreviate New Musical Express to NME, which is fine, but I would suggest linking at least one instance to the Wikipedia page, for those who aren't familiar with it.
    That's what the publication goes/is known by these days. Done to a reference. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More domain names as title: [3] - ukwhoswho.com; [131] - austriancharts.at; [133] - Rap-Up.com; [229] -- independent.co.uk; [302] -- charts.de
    Addressed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need "Professor" in [194].
    Good catch. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [217] it seems something odd is happening with the formatting; you have italics for some date information. Maybe use the orig= parameter?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [226] & [234] need a newspaper= or work= parameter
    Fixed.
  • [274] is an academic journal; you don't have to use cite templates but it should match the format of the cite to Sroka.
    Modernized. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [283] has italics in the title parameter which should be removed; the template applies the italics so the result is unitalicized text.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date on [6] appears to be incorrect; it should be 2006.
    Looks like that value was accidentally changed when adding the archive link. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you could combine [25] and [50]; and [29] and [63].
    I somehow missed this earlier, but now done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [126]'s archive link goes to the NY Times, not to MSNBC.
    That was an odd glitch in AIBot at some point, I think. The MSNBC link was dead and no archives existed for it so I swapped it to Reuters. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [181]'s link doesn't work, which would be OK if the archive link worked, but the archive link takes you to a database search page. You could augment this as with [295] with a description of search terms, but presumably that's not going to work since archive.org won't have the search capability. If the current link can be updated, and search terms given, that would resolve it for this FAC, but I'm not sure there's anything you can do about archiving it.
    How would you recommend adding search instructions? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at [295] as an example and it seems that {{cite certification}} does the work in that case. The citation for [295] is {{cite certification|region=United Kingdom|artist=Mick Jagger|type=album|access-date=20 August 2019}} which produces ""British album certifications – Mick Jagger". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 20 August 2019. Select albums in the Format field. Type Mick Jagger in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter." So perhaps reproduce that text manually? Whatever search terms will let the reader find the supporting information. That's assuming there's an active link you can use, of course; the current link is dead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [296] has the same problem as [181].
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [186] doesn't appear to support the text it cites.
    Replaced. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [196] and [197] are both broken links; the NYT does have permalinks available so this should be fixable.
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [252] link is broken.
    On the version the ref numbers are off of, all links in [252] work just fine? --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [273] is dead.
    Fixed link. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [293] second bullet archive link doesn't work.
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should [302] and [303] have search instructions?
    Added. How's it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [270] is improperly formatted like the rest and is missing an ISBN number – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zmbro: Addressed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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"