Good articleKeith Richards has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 28, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the riff for "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", the Rolling Stones' first number-one hit, came to Keith Richards (pictured) in his sleep?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 18, 2020, and December 18, 2023.

Useful reference for future: 1 (species of Trilobite named after Richards)

Vocals[edit]

Vocals should absolutely be listed as one of Keith's instruments - he sings lead at every Rolling Stones concert and usually once or twice on most of their albums. He's a vocalist.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Keith Richards/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheSandDoctor. I will be reviewing this article today.

Definitely.  Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@12george1: Where would you recommend including this in the article? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better source for such an addition Rolling Stone --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@12george1: I don't know how comfortable I am with citing a YouTube channel as a non-primary source. As a side note, I didn't realize that WatchMojo was Canadian. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@12george1: I am not sure what exactly "fandalism.com" is, and it could be a mirror site. I appreciate you not instantly failing that as I did not write that section. I checked the revision just before I ever touched the article and, sure enough, it was still there. Turns out that, while I didn't write it, I hadn't found my first edit to the article. I am not really sure where it was added, but it was after I first edited the page. Most of my work with the article was improving references. I will address the other concerns first while I try to figure out who is copying who exactly. It could also have been copied from a mirror copying us, but that is just a guess at this point as I have yet to dig into it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC); corrected 00:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@12george1: That is strange, when I visit the link it is just a page with a blank box - not any content which Earwig pulls up. I checked the HTML and it is also lacks it. I am not sure where Earwig is pulling that from.... (take a look here) --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All added. It turns out that I was also able to bring the link "back to life" as they had just changed their URL format. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'm not sure, that was added long before I was an editor. The link didn't take you to a page that could verify anything either, so I have replaced the reference with the correct link. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Updated ref, added. Thanks for pointing that out. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I am not sure why someone kept adding those. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @12george1: I have added to it. The link is dead, but the archive indicates that an author was never named. I am happy to also remove this reference entirely as Rolling Stone is more reputable anyways. It is worth noting though that the "Wayback Machine" being at the end is per Template:Webarchive and not the style choice of whoever added it (not me). --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It appears that the "date" was actually intended to be the access date (was 7 years later than the piece's listed 2010 pub date), so I swapped them. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Replaced with one from the British Film Institute, which should suffice. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of stuff here, but most of the points listed above are minor. So I will not outright fail this nomination, but I would like to see progress during the next week or too.--12george1 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@12george1: I feel like I left this article in better shape when I actually nominated it almost a year ago. Truth betold, I had forgotten about this nomination. I shall work on the above and see what I can get done this week. When I nominated it I had a lot more time and this review started right at the end of my Christmas holidays (obviously not your fault, just not the most optimal timing ). --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12george1, TheSandDoctor, it's been another three weeks; where does the nomination stand now? The three examples have been cited, but if they was just three of many, then perhaps citation needed tags will help get the rest covered so this can pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@12george1: What are your thoughts on the above 12george1? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to pass this article now. Sorry for the long delays.--12george1 (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction should state that Richards has appeared in two Pirates of the Caribbean movies, not three[edit]

"He also appeared in three Pirates of the Caribbean films as Captain Teague, father of Jack Sparrow, whose look and characterisation was inspired by Richards himself."

This is untrue. Captain Teague was portrayed by Alexander Scheer in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. AndrewBridgeman (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates information[edit]

https://ew.com/article/2004/11/12/keith-richards-father-figure-week/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/keith-richards-to-play-pirate-pop/

If I may offer some more reliable sources. Keith Richards was rumored for a role as Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow's dad in POTC since 2004, and later reported in 2006 in at least one article by CBS. I'd add these myself, but you know, protected. This is a request in addition to the incorrection to "appeared in three films" comment in the article's introduction, as stated above, which was made even with the page protected. 147.124.239.44 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories