This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Topics from 2004

User 194

194.78.139.231 has recently added POV material. I hesitate to revert since there may be something valuable here. Andres 22:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this material should be examined in detail right now, before any further edits are made. Critical information might be lost otherwise. 88.3.201.254 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Come back in another 5 years and we'll know. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Topics from 2005

NPOV

..look man,.. Rod is really a great singer but calling him "the greatest on Earth" is I think, and many others will agree, maby little "too much". If you want to use "greatest on Earth" rock&roll male singer for Rod then there might be others to consider too, like Freddie Mercury, Sebastian Bierk,.. -[ 194.249.64.240 at 22:15, 11 February 2005 ]

I'd personally nominate Don Henley. Behold the magic of opinions. -[ 67.142.129.10 at 08:31, 13 February 2005 ]

All fixed. violet/riga (t) 10:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism by Jorge Ben

Somebody might mention that "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" was found to be plagarized from Brazilian musician Jorge Ben. --64.73.195.1 03:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

To his detractors, this was the epitome of Stewart's Egotism". True, people said this, but funny how none of them listened to the words of the song which is about a bloke who takes all night to get the girl home and can't, ahem, perform when he does. Remember if you would that this is the man who charted with a sympathetic song about the death of a "freind of mine" in a queer bashing assault. Charting, that is, in 1976.

Britmax 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Early career

I'm gradually adding more material about his early solo career, and whether or not he "betrayed his talent" later on. As it stood the article was too charts-centric. Wasted Time R 10:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wisconsin?

Did Rod Stewart ever play in wisconsin (1970-1972)? I heard that his aunt was living in Wisconsin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.117.51 (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of a question more appropriate for the reference desk than this talk page. Please read the

Illegitimate children

I'm not sure but some media report that as of today he is a father of 7 children :) Those old rock singers like Rod, Mick Jgger, Steven Tyler and others can really afford damn everything - let's bet who's gonna be his next wife or how many children will he have before he dies :))

The story is that the seventh is on the way. [1] I'll work it in at some point. Wasted Time R 19:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In now. Wasted Time R 03:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As it were. :-) -[ 201.8.71.227 at 16:41, 20 October 2005 ]

Topics from 2006

Vandalism

I had to remove this link while reverting vandalism which was labeled as spam by the filter which may actually be legit. I am not sure if it is so I am putting it here for consideration. I added a space after the http: so I could put it here without triggering spam filters. Sifaka 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC) http: //www.rockphiles.com/rp_artist.php?act_id=46 Rockphiles artist bio

Most of these bio sites are poor-to-useless even if they aren't spam. I'm all for taking them out. Wasted Time R 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mullet?

What's the difference between a rooster haircut and a mullet? -[ Gbleem at 01:19, 19 April 2006 ]

Year of birth

Rod stewarts year of birth is 1945, not 1980 as mentioned in the article. But I'm sure the clever folk out there realized this was incorrect. -[ 205.250.116.153 at 04:40, 20 April 2006 ]

American Idol

Rod was on American Idol a few weeks ago. Did his album sales go up from that? 216.239.38.136 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hooliganism?

Why is there no mention of his soccer/football hooliangism? -[ CoastThinker 04:50, 31 May 2006 ]

Picture?

Why is there no picture of him here? I think we need one. -[ 24.83.248.193 at 17:12, 25 July 2006 ]

I agree fully... except I have no clue how to use wikipedia... so... if someone who knows what there doing could take care of that.

Poo

In the 1982–2001 section, it says he "pooed his pants in December 31, 2006" or something similar. Can someone remove that? (Geekening (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Done. Shinku Hisaki 07:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Balls

Can someone remove the Cartman/Mr. Garrison line? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.118.148 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that vandalism. Sorry I didn't catch it before and thanks for reporting it. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some Texan keeps vandalizing the page. Could someone report it? The IP is 208.190.24.3. -[ Almost Anonymous 15:51, 13 October 2006 ]

Yes I agree, 208.190.24.3 is continually vandalising this page LW77 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone for tennis?

Any reason the article says Stewart had trials at "tennis clubs Celtic and Brentford"? --rsgdodge 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship

The article mentioned that Stewart looked into obtaining American citizenship back in the mid-1970s. Did he actually go through with it, or is he still a British subject? Rglovejoy 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't lose your British citizenship if you become American. Snowbound 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2007

Malco?

In the early life section it states, "He is a malco". What is a "malco"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.104.55.243 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

It is a made up word, it has no meaning.(Trampton 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)).

Married

Is Rod married to Penny?? I tried to find it but I can't. Is it just rumours or is it real?? --83.89.125.210 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Undid vandalism

Undid vandalism Sue Wallace 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC

[[ HOW COULD HE SELL OVER 250 MILLION ALBUMS AND SINGLES IF HES ONLY SOLD 36.5 MILLION ALBUMS AND SINGLES IN THE U.S. AND THE U.S. MAKES UP FOR 40% OF HIS TOTAL ALBUM SALES?]]

I agree, that doesn't sound correct, and the source of the info is not a reliable source, its a ticket agents. Sue Wallace 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that "Good morning little schoolgirl" and "roddy rod and the dynamic duo" is vandalism leftovers? Sue Wallace 05:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Me too, especially about the second one. Google finds only an Internet quiz, which uses a sentence from this article for one of its questions... Hołek ҉ 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning Little Schoolgirl is true: [2]. Hołek ҉ 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the last two entries as vandalism which it wasn't - however it still needed to be deleted in any case, firstly, they are not married YET, secondly, the last amendement was a link to an advertisement. Sue Wallace 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

250 million sales, or not?

Although this article says that his sales easily earn him a place on the list of best-selling music artists, it seems he was removed entirely from that page, probably after this discussion. I don't know who is right (although surely he should be somewhere on the list of best-sellers, even if not in the 250 million category) but could the two articles be made consistent with each other? I guess this article could give the various estimates and references if we can't be certain which is correct.--Angelastic 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he must be a best selling mustic artist, trouble is finding a reliable source that can confirm the total sales, does anyone know of any sites that can tell us? Sue Wallace 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear we're not going to find a reliable site that will place his record sales that high. I suggest it is removed.

Seems like the only solution for this disagreement would be to leave it, but get more references for it, so I marked it. If there is no consensus for this, feel free to remove my template. I was cited recently on an article I was working on and furnished 3 references- seems excessive but when something is questioned -perhaps that satisfies everyone. Agadant 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The 250 million claim's first cite was a ticket-seller's boilerplate bio that was just a WP echo of the claim's second explanation, "The BBC quoted in their Breakfast Show on 1 November 2006 that Rod Stewart is one of the top ten biggest-selling artists in recording history, with well over 250,000,000 records sold." I don't know whether the show made that claim or not, but it flies in the face of reason, especially given what we know about Stewart's sales in the U.S. (37 million albums). The Best selling music artists is now using this 2002 BBC News story that says Stewart "has sold more than 100 million records across the world". This seems much more likely, and I have changed this article to use that figure with that source. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ayaztr2 has tried to change to the previous 250 million figure, using this music review cite. This doesn't seem especially authoritative, and I think it has less WP:RS value than the BBC News story I pointed to above. So I've reverted the change. But there is a real problem here, in that none of these 'worldwide total records sold' figures are certified by anyone; they're all pulled out of the air to some extent. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Who?

"In 2007 Rod's son, Sean, starred in the A&E television show called Sons of Hollywood, in which Rod's role as a parent is a major theme. He also performed "Sailing", Baby Jane", and "Maggie May" at the memorial concert for Princess Diana in the same year."

Rod's son did, or Rod? It sounds like it was the son, given how this is written. GeneCallahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.83.90 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I've reworded the first paragraph to resolve the edit war over whether Rod Stewart is Scottish or British. A few points;

It's a fact that he was born in London and has lived most his life either there or America.
Whether he considers himself Scottish or not is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned until someone provides a cite for it. It is not enough to change the article and tell others to do some research. That's what you're supposed to do before contributing.
What he "considers" himself isn't the last word. If he "considered" himself to be an Eskimo would it be reported as a fact?

Anyway, I hope that how I've worded it clears it up for the moment. But a cite is still needed and as it is an uncited statement policy says it can (and probably should) be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What a daft comparison. His entire family, with the exception of one parent is Scottish. He was born into a Scottish family. Regardless of whether there is a citation, it is widely known that Rod Stewart identifies with being Scottish. I suspect you are aware of that fact. It is not in any way, shape or form similar to considering himself an Eskimo. 77.102.8.117 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not a comparison. It was taking an example to an extreme to make the point clear. Just because you "consider" something does not make it a fact. Wikipedia doesn't care what is "widely known" it wants facts with citations. The article currently says exactly what you say, all I'm asking for is a cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the question of nationality is not if he is Scottish or British, but Scottish or English. It seems he is Scottish despite having been born in London, but of course he is still British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.149.8 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear he is a Scotsman, why is this so hard to accept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On the question of nationality, Rod Stewart is British(FACT). Scotland is not (at the moment) a separate nation and so carries no status for nationality in a world sense, irrespective of what many Scottish Nationalists may think. I say this despite being a Scot and will proudly go with the nationality of Scottish if and when the country is ever independent of the UK. In the meantime, please accept that all Scots are British, just like all Welsh, English and Northern Irish citizens.

In a football sense, with which Rod no doubt associates himself strongly, anyone who has parent or grandparent born in any of the four countries mentioned above qualifies to play football (soccer) for the country of EITHER birth or parentage, so Rod could have chosen to be either English or Scottish. Based on this alone, I can understand that Rod would want to be Scottish like his father from an early age, also influenced no doubt by his older siblings who were all born in Scotland, and not detracting from the love of his mother Elsie who was born in London. None of this changes the FACT- Rod Stewart's nationality is British as it says on his passport.Bobinscotland (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinscotland (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He supports the Scottish National team and not the English. Waves Scottish flags at concerts and supports Celtic (club in Scotland) even though you have him down as an Arsenal supporter. Just because you have a British passport doesn't mean you want to be British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.18.37 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Interestingly I saw The Faces play in the early 70s and Rod arrived with a QPR scarf, claiming to have come directly from their game, and chanted "Rodney" (Rodney Marsh, then a player at QPR) at the assembled audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewdh (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stewart and Faces

It seems to me that Stewarts discography should include the fact that most of his early 70's releases were with the band Faces. I'm sure this was one of the problems that disgruntled the rest of the band, the albums were titled Rod Stewart, Never a Dull Moment", "Smiler", "Every Picture Tells a Story" etc. But the players were basically the same throughout until Atlantic Crossings I believe. Pretzel logic60 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you, but excluding compilations and live albums of previously released music, Rod Stewart released four albums as did The Faces (with Rod on vocals)so they released an equal number of newly recorded music in 'the early seventies' which I assume you mean 1970-1974. Rod had already released 'An Old Raincoat...' in 1969 before this though, an album which is widely regarded as his starting point as a solo artist, so he would have five releases by this reckoning to The Faces' four, and certainly dismisses the claim that 'most of his early 70's releases were with the band Faces'. The albums quoted were Rod Stewart solo albums on the Mercury label and not recognised as Faces albums which were separately released by Warner, although there was indeed much crossover of talent in the playing and writing of all those albums.Bobinscotland (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Topics from 2008

Picture

The current picture is very old and should be changed to a more recent one of him. The Rod Steward I know- not the one from the '70s. Many Thanks xxox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.182.16 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree— where's the best place to find a free one??HaereMai (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations & references

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stepping on toes and... football?

Hi, I hope I didn't step on any toes, but am an editor outside Wikipedia as well.. and I saw some redundancies and lengthy wording, so I hope before anyone thinks about reverting my changes, please keep what you do like, and delete the rest, if necessary. I barely got started, actually, lol.. however it would be a good way to trim down the size of the page.

My other comment is the use of the word "football" here. Many Americans are unaware that it's the name for soccer. Perhaps there's a way to clarify that here? --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the first mention of 'football' to a link to the association football page, so people can find out what it is. Maybe the link itself should say soccer or association football, but then people used to calling it football might be confused. --Angelastic (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm using 'football' throughout, as that's certainly the term that was used at the time. And even obtuse Americans are aware that no English boy aspired to an NFL career in 1961.... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit topic-year headers & dated entries

12-April-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. In sorting, I retro-dated/signed 12 entries and moved the top entry from 1-July-2007 into date order. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Banjo? mandolin

He plays the banjo? I think he plays the mandolin, but not the banjo. (BluesUrbano) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.248.93 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's banjo. Various other people played the famous mandolin parts on this early albums. You can see him playing banjo on one song during the 1993 MTV Unplugged performance. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Topics from 2009

Ancestry

The article implies that Rod has Scottish parents. I knew his father was Scottish, but I had always read in interviews that his mother, Elsie was a Londoner.--jeanne (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified in the 'Early life' section that his father was Scottish and his mother English, and given where each are from. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Python Lee Jackson

The reference to Rod Stewart singing on the Python Lee Jackson song 'In A Broken Dream' wrongly states 1970 as the year he sang it. The session for this recording took place in April 1969. See separate Wiki article on Python Lee Jackson for clarification.Bobinscotland (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Born 1901?

It says he was born 1901?? But the first paragraph says 1945.--68.100.51.93 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

People are vandalizing the page, probably because he was just on American Idol.... I'm ashamed at myself for knowing that. 208.84.198.34 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I was actually watching American Idol and my mom was wondering about his age so I looked it up and was like "wait WHAT?"--68.100.51.93 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You won the Wikipedia Vandalism Lottery. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Soulbook

No article about the new album? It's already released —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.100.231 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no article. Create one yourself, that's how it works around here. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Joke about finding a woman…

…and giving her a house is actually a gag of the writer and humorist Lewis Grizzard, and not original to Stewart.Jock123 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Stewart's odd financial / legal personality

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of Stewart's questionable financial behavior, from the royalties Jeff Beck had to sue to get from him, to his trying to keep a US$2M fee for a casino concert that he never performed (and now his attorneys from that trial are suing Stewart to collect their fees for the trial itself).

The man seems to have some sort of issues in this area (the current article DOES mention him trying to get US citizenship due to disputes with UK tax authorities, and yet another lawsuit). There seems to be a pattern here, and it could be a section in its own right. Biturica (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Topics from 2010

"Everybody Hurts"

Rob's participation in the charity single "Everybody Hurts" for Haiti earthquake relief is needed.--Cooly123 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Overfamiliarity?

I think this edit, with edit summary "c-e to eliminate unencyclopedic overfamiliarity", is somewhat misguided. In the last couple of years it's become acceptable in GA and FA articles to use first names when writing about someone's years as a child and when distinguishing between family members of the same last name. Using first names can avoid a lot of stilted usage and unclear pronoun antecedents. See WP:MOSBIO#Family members with the same surname for example guidelines on this, and Geraldine Ferraro and George W. Romney for examples of articles that do this and have gotten to GA and been through FAC. I don't propose to use "Rod" (or "Robert") after the Early life section, but I think it's acceptable and useful to use them there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i understand that first-name use is occasionally necessary to distnguish among family members, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. i find "his father" much clearer than "Robert", and if you could point out where it creates awkwardness/stiltedness, that would no doubt help us reach a compromise. meanwhile i see no reason to attribute that "happy childhood" quote – a statement that Stewart made as an adult – to "Rod"; that seems like just plain unencyclopedic overfamiliarity. (in fact just omitting the quote might be an even better solution, though - it's not exactly revelatory, is it.) Sssoul (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to the style issue later, but I disagree on the merits of the quote. To say one had a "fantastically happy childhood" is biographically significant, and certainly separates Stewart from a lot of other rock artists (think Lennon or Springsteen or Janis Joplin, just to name a few). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How come no Rumors section?

I'm sure most people have heard the stomach pumping rumors, how come no section discussing this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.204.43 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid gossip column. Wikipedia doesn't do rumours, particularly when they are demonstratively false. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He is of and lineage

Needs editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.180.14 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Height

According to the main page Rod Stewart is 5' 11 tall . That would make Rachel Hunter at 5' 10 shorter than him !! and he would be just two inches shorter than his current wife. I personally do not recall Rod Stewart ever being taller than a girl friend/partner. Can we have a correct height please . My Guess is 5' 7 at the most .86.138.72.232 (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Topics from 2011

"Rod Stewart & The Moontrekkers"

The article states that, in 1962, "Stewart then briefly fronted his own group, Rod Stewart & The Moontrekkers, who competed with Davies' band". I don't think that is correct. I've just put together a brief stub on The Moontrekkers, and the sources suggest that what happened was that Stewart joined the group - then called The Raiders - around 1960/61, leaving before they became The Moontrekkers and recorded with Joe Meek. Later, in 1963, Stewart joined the Raiders / Moontrekkers lead guitarist Gary Leport in The Dimensions, which then toured as Jimmy Powell & The Five Dimensions. I'm no expert on Stewart, so don't want to change this article on the basis of the sources I've found, but it would good to get a definitive view from people here who are more expert. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. I got that from the Doug Hinman The Kinks - All Day and All of the Night source, but the book's account hasn't jibed with other sources well. The Ewbank and Hildred biography of Stewart pp. 14-15 says he was briefly with the Raiders when he was 16, tagging along for one recording session where he sang a couple of numbers but Meek didn't like his singing and that was that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's the story I picked up from the sources linked from the Moontrekkers article. I'll leave it to you to change this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanks for spotting this! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As a PS, I just noticed that the article described the Dimensions as being "Birmingham-based". I know the BBC source says that (though the Mojo article doesn't), but it's not true. The story of the (Five) Dimensions is here - they were north London musicians who were contracted to back Jimmy Powell, who was himself from Birmingham. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It was the Gray book (which I have) that said they were Birmingham based. This account says they had members from both London and the West Midlands area ... I guess on balance they were more London oriented, but we certainly can't go wrong to say nothing about their base, so your edit is fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

2013 Topics

Ray Davies quartet

I've just been listening to Rod being interviewed on the BBC 6 Music Breakfast Show where he has denied ever being in the Ray Davies quartet. Clearly, there are sources which disagree with him and these are rightly referenced in the article. What to do? Longwayround (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully a good source will appear reporting this that can be cited. Radio programmes don't make good cites, as they are almost impossible to verify. I've tagged the statement as dubious for now. What isn't a good idea is having the article state it as fact, and then say Stewart called it "balls". Far better to note that there is disagreement about it. I'm certainly not saying Stewart is wrong, or lying, but sometimes people do have their own reasons to re-write history. The points are well cited currently, does anyone have access to either books? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never had a good gut feeling for whether this is true or not. The main source is Hinman's All Day and All of the Night book on the Kinks, which is one of those Lewisohn-esque, years-of-research, every-day-in-the-life accounts of that group. You can see the page in question here. It certainly looks like Hinman did some research to establish this. But there isn't much in the way of supporting collaboration in other books. When Rod's autobio came out a few months ago, I checked it, but all he says there is that he went to William Grimshaw Secondary Modern with the Davies brothers, which everyone agrees on. And now Rod says he was never a part of their group. Unless other good sources can be found one way or the other, I'll just write it as another Note giving both sides to the story. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. I suspect that it's most probably down to fallible memories of events, and differing interpretation of what constitutes being "a member" of a group. It's a long time ago and membership of groups when starting out can be a bit of a vague arrangement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I found this page from the Thomas M. Kitts book Ray Davies: Not Like Everybody Else which says that Stewart was considered for being the quartet's vocalist but personalities never would have worked out. There's a quote from Pete Quaife which comes from an article by Johnny Black, "The Kinks: Hellfire Club", in the September 2000 issue of Mojo, but I haven't been able to find that in the clear yet. Also listened to the BBC 6 Shaun Keaveny interview with Stewart - this bit starts at 11:40, interviewer says 'I never knew that ...', Stewart says 'No, no', interviewer says 'It's balls?', Stewart repeats 'It's balls,' and then says 'As far as I know we were never in a band together.' Bit of a hedge there maybe. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So there's hedging all round; "considered" as group vocalist doesn't actually mean he was the group's vocalist. The truth is probably that they performed maybe once or twice together, but nothing more than that. Until we have a good cite to counter the claim of "band membership", the best option just now is probably scaling it down just to say they were knew each other, and performed together once. Whether you call that "joining" the group can be left for the reader to decide. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten this, trying to reflect all different perspectives and tying material closer to each source that is used and adding a Note about Stewart's recent statement. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rod Stewart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article came up for review on WP:GAN. That being said, User:Wasted Time R did mention that the article was not ready, and after reviewing it, I'm inclined to agree. I do not feel that the article meets the GA requirements at this time.

To be more helpful, I've put together a list and some comments on what needs to improve in order to bring this article to GA status, which I believe it is capable of being.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Though the article was supposedly not ready, quite a bit of it looks to be in great shape. Here are some areas to work on.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
While the prose is quite well-written in some areas, in others it is very choppy. One major example of this is the 2009 onward section, where every paragraph begins with a date and essentially reads like a list of events. This is not GA-level, and needs to be cleaned up.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Reference section is very nice, although a couple of bare URLs and titles could use some more information for the sourcing. Largest issue here is that there are large sections later on in the prose that are unsourced, and could contain original research. Sourcing these areas will be important.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Pretty broad, though personally when I look at music articles I like to see a little bit about a musician's style. That's not a GA requirement, though, and I think it meets this requirement as is.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
It looks like a lot of effort has been put into this article, and it's a shame to me that it has not been finished yet. It does have potential, though, and I encourage the authors to consider nominating it again once the remaining sections are rewritten and sourced appropriately.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The overtone and balance (possibly), poorly used "puff" or "negative" words, excessive use of words like "success/fame" or "decline" and "only/just" (negative), inconsistent/poorly dated categories (attempted to resolve), unsourced statements and overly descriptive section titles and text (too long) compared to others, etc. are just some of the problems with this article. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Worked on some of the sections that were not consistent/proper according to Wikipedia standards. If disputed, please discuss here first to resolve and reach a consensus. Thanks! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have some good points in general. But the previous "1964–67: Long John Baldry, Steampacket, and 'Rod the Mod'" section title is better than your "1964–67: New beginnings and image" replacement. The first is informative and factual and neutral, while the second is vague and uninformative and could apply to several periods in Stewart's career. Length of section title is not that important; remember that because Wikipedia articles do not have indexes, the table of contents serves partial double duty as one. As for the later section titles, I am not a big fan of using album names in them, because they don't tell you much and (in this case) many albums will go unnamed. An exception is if the album name is really reflective of a period, as it is with Atlantic Crossing, since he moved from England to the U.S. during that time. But what does a section title like "1988–94: Out Of Order and Vagabond Heart" tell the reader about Stewart during that period? Pretty much nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. I have changed the section to include "Rod the Mod" since that was a defining/significant factor in his life. My issue with just listing highlights in the section title is that it "cherry-picks favorites" when there are other people/events that happened during these periods as well. For instance, within that section, Long John Baldry and Steampacket didn't just influence/contribute to Stewart's beginnings into the music industry. The reason I summarized it the way I did is because it was perhaps the most influential impact of his music career "in the beginning" of starting a new venture in his life beyond his "early work and personal struggles". To single out LJB and Steampacket and not others in that section seemed to be "peacocking". And I agree about the albums, but if you look at most/allot of musician articles, the sections are separated by albums with details about them. It's neutral and simple/basic. I realize this isn't the case with all, but there are a significant amount that follow this formula. And in all honesty, Out of Order and Vagabond Heart were significant albums at the time ("comeback period" and 'successful' progression in his latter career), which makes it easier for readers to find and read about. I'm willing to compromise as I did with replacing "Rod the Mod", but in all fairness, we would need a consensus from others. My main purpose and reason for making changes from the way it was, is because it was too specific about some things and not others as well as the misuse and overuse of specific words that should be avoided on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don't think LJB or Steampacket tells readers much either, and may not be common knowledge to the basic reader as his more popular albums are (or for someone wanting to know how he got his start in the industry). I think a lead in like "fresh/new beginnings/ventures" or "new direction in a music career" or "early contributions and influences in music", etc. (just examples in general not about this article necessarily) are better for summaries, even though I realize (and we should keep in mind) this is an encyclopedia and not a best-selling novel attempting to get readers interested. (smile) I'm not too concerned about winning over the public, as much as doing it the most appropriate way per Wikipedia standards/guidelines. I'm not saying i'm perfect or more right in my decision, I just know the way it was before wasn't the best. Nonetheless, I appreciate your suggestions! :) 74.62.92.20 (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Made a few more inclusive changes. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of your changes are doing the very thing you criticized, as you are introducing mushy, subjective terms like "struggles" and "new beginnings" that are no better than the old terms. Meeting and playing with Long John Baldry was a very, very significant event in Stewart's life, as any decent biography, or Stewart himself, would tell you, and thus a section header that names him is quite appropriate. And the focus on albums in the section titles is misplaced. The significance of the Jeff Beck Group period is not that they happened to release an album called Truth, it is that he developed much of his sense of vocal style and phrasing singing against Beck's guitar and arrangements. If we want to expand the section title to tell the reader what is important, that is what we should try to convey. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, actually not. My words are not being used as descriptive/derroagatory ways to describe his career or album performances. It's used to convey a message about the section. "Struggles" was about his personal life, not an attack on his abilities being successful or sales declining as it was before. Words used like "only" or "just" and "successful" or "decline/failure", etc. about his album/singles performance was what I was trying to get rid of. He had early struggles that led to the new beginning after meeting Long John Baldry. Please stop focusing on the section "labels" so much and take the content in context. When you read the actual sections, it makes sense to explain one main event to another, which albums tend to summarize simply. You can't possibly include everything in the title of a section, the article itself is for that. And you may think that is significant but we have to stick to facts and albums heading the sections is generally what is used since it is black and white, not a grey synopsis of what one editor thinks is relevant and others may not think are. It's not about putting what is "important" or what Rod and his camp would put, it's about what is the Wikipedia process that matters. I realize not all editors are consistent, but i'm focusing on this article at the moment. And adding Truth wasn't to connect it to the Jeff Beck Group period, it is just another main topic and album that occurred during that time to expand the section header, as are the other sections with major albums. We can't focus on what we like most or we are connected to personally, this is an encyclopedia article that should follow a protocol, it's not our place to "decorate" it the way we want as if it's our article, blog, book or has something to do with our experiences and connection to the artist and his life activities. To be honest, this is having mercy on the article as it is. Many articles simply list albums and dates as sections with "early period", "mid-life career", "later career", etc. Those are usually the generic/general type of categories/sections, not elaborating on cherry-picked events as the main topic. Nonetheless, I will adjust the section again, but there has to be a consensus and Wikipedia quality that we consider first. We need to convey that, not what readers will like. That is not what the task is, to appeal to readers. It's to simply contribute reliable information in a specific format, not deciding what we think is essential. That's not being neutral. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I TOTALLY concede that The Steampacket (not just Steampacket as it was before) should be included since he was apart of that group. I don't think I intentionally removed that before. My bad for overlooking it. As far as his personal struggles in the beginning of his music career goes, I added his first major work with The Dimensions instead. That venture pre-dated new beginnings with Long John Baldry, but simply putting his name in an article 'title' about Stewart doesn't make much sense without a more detailed explanation (which he is mentioned within the section already). I think one problem is that there are/were so many damn sections in the first place. It becomes a game of "who" or "what" gets to usher in the content/context. It has to just be simple. Early life, personal life, impact on pop culture, legal issues, ministry work, pop albums, television credits, etc. etc. (just as an example per other articles). At any rate, I combined two sections the other day and did so again just a few minutes ago. Simply marking the Faces and solo albums section together will suffice. I think the way it is now should be okay and supportive of Wikipedia standards. If anyone else has any disputes, please discuss below. Thanks! P.s. at least the date problems are consistent now. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things to my prior responses: I realize that Truth wasn't the only album by Jeff Beck Group and it shouldn't have been singled out necessarily, so I think summarizing it as the "period" for the group in general is appropriate. That wasn't a deliberate change. I also didn't mean to specify the Vagabond Heart album was necessarily important enough to include as a section header, but to avoid using "comeback period" or "resurgence in popularity", etc. I added it with the Out of Order album since they were significant in defining his longevity/diversity (according to Rolling Stone's review about his continued inspiration and renewal not comeback). I wanted to avoid "peacocking" that section, but I personally think those two albums and subsequent singles from them are an "important" point in his career at the time. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)