Picking it up for a review. Would be making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if I make any mistake!
Adityavagarwal (
talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"...including DVD, Blu-ray, and CD, 27 May 2017" part of the same thing mentioned in the notes sections. Could be merged with it.
If the Rolling Stones had only one manager, then mention "the" Rolling Stones manager.
@
Adityavagarwal: Over time they have had a few managers, if you are talking currently (which I assume you are), that is a tad tricky to answer as every member of the band has their own manager(s) and "people" that all have to work together to make things work - it is a complicated hierarchy centering around
Mick Jagger and
Keith Richards. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Would be great if you could archive the links for web references for when they die (also, put archive dates).
Done I usually do that to pages I come across and work with since Ritchie333 used it on
The Rolling Stones and I learned of the tool, but it appears that it slipped my mind in this case, so thank you for pointing it out. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Current ref 17 (itunes) should be avoided, so it should be changed.
True, but it is a reference proving that it is on iTunes? --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Done Found one on rolling stones.com. While it does not explicitly mention iTunes, it does contain a link to the iTunes Store listing (click "Digital video" smarturl near bottom of post). --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
One more thing that I noticed is "and marked the first time a foreign rock band had performed an open-air concert in Cuba to a crowd of that size" has 4 references, so that could be reduced.
@
Adityavagarwal: I have removed one of the refs (was used elsewhere). I don't really want to remove any more as I think that having them included would be a wise idea. I kind of think that the NY Times ref should stay, but also do not want to lose the Reuters or Variety refs (that is the only place the latter two are used in article - maybe a "Further reading" section would be a remedy for this?). --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Picking it up for a review. Would be making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if I make any mistake!
Adityavagarwal (
talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"...including DVD, Blu-ray, and CD, 27 May 2017" part of the same thing mentioned in the notes sections. Could be merged with it.
If the Rolling Stones had only one manager, then mention "the" Rolling Stones manager.
@
Adityavagarwal: Over time they have had a few managers, if you are talking currently (which I assume you are), that is a tad tricky to answer as every member of the band has their own manager(s) and "people" that all have to work together to make things work - it is a complicated hierarchy centering around
Mick Jagger and
Keith Richards. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Would be great if you could archive the links for web references for when they die (also, put archive dates).
Done I usually do that to pages I come across and work with since Ritchie333 used it on
The Rolling Stones and I learned of the tool, but it appears that it slipped my mind in this case, so thank you for pointing it out. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Current ref 17 (itunes) should be avoided, so it should be changed.
True, but it is a reference proving that it is on iTunes? --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Done Found one on rolling stones.com. While it does not explicitly mention iTunes, it does contain a link to the iTunes Store listing (click "Digital video" smarturl near bottom of post). --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 05:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply
One more thing that I noticed is "and marked the first time a foreign rock band had performed an open-air concert in Cuba to a crowd of that size" has 4 references, so that could be reduced.
@
Adityavagarwal: I have removed one of the refs (was used elsewhere). I don't really want to remove any more as I think that having them included would be a wise idea. I kind of think that the NY Times ref should stay, but also do not want to lose the Reuters or Variety refs (that is the only place the latter two are used in article - maybe a "Further reading" section would be a remedy for this?). --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)reply