This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Judgesurreal777 (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 9 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:08, 9 May 2006 by Judgesurreal777 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary.
- all images need sources and fair use rationales.
- The article lacks references,currently has a few html links in text which lack supporting information, and when they are there they need to be cited as footnotes
- The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone
- the sections themselves are extremely long. It seems like they could be reorganized so that instead of a chronology of the band, each section focused on one element of the band and how it changed throught the band's history.
- Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 40+ years the band have existed
- Fannish tone.
- This sentence is not nice: 'By the end of the '60s, The Stones had racked up a great number of hit records, each single displaying an alarming rate of musical growth. 'Upper-case 'T' for 'The Stones'? 'racked up' is too colloquial for this register. 'a great number of'—would a single word do here? 'alarming'—this appears to be inappropriate here.