Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Bowie/archive2

< 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 Karanacs 20:36, 28 September 2010 [1].

David Bowie edit

David Bowie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? It's David Bowie. I look forward to your comments. PL290 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as following comments all dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is an English musician, actor, record producer and arranger." In cases like this some formula like "is an English musician, who has also worked as an actor, record producer and arranger." is preferable. "pop" musician too?
    • Reworded along the lines suggested. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs more on Bowie's special status, beyond just being a guy who sold lots of records. Quotes are probably best.
    • I've added something. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a collegiate environment, ..." - a wierd way to describe a London technical school in the early 60s! Best cut.
    • It was an unusual one, that's the point. Reworded to make that clear. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the tutelage of Owen Frampton" - "befriended by one of his teachers, Owen Frampton ..." perhaps. Vague & odd as it is.
  • links needed? "rock and roll", "Mick Jagger" (there's one much later), "the Who" ("The" surely), Sadler's Wells, the Monkees, Lauren Bacali (who? - Lauren Bacall?), Tolworth, cocaine, paranoia, contrapuntal, combining Western and Hejaz scales - must be more precise links,
    • Links added as suggested (and yes, thanks, it was Lauren Bacall). PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was forced to stay out of school for an extended period so that doctors could conduct operations to repair his potentially blinded eye." needs copyedit, & prferably more detail - weeks, months? "potentially blinded eye" is awkward, esp for UK English.
  • "When Bowie left the technical school the following year, he informed his parents of his intention to become a pop idol. His mother promptly arranged his employment as an electrician's mate." Nice, but I think they only had "stars" then, not "idols".
  • "when London Weekend Television's Russell Harty interviewed the singer", better "when Russell Harty interviewed the singer for his London Weekend Television talk show" - presumably what it was. Anyway LWT didn't own him.
  • "Spanish dictator Francisco Franco was announced" - "General Franco" is usual.
  • "the album went Platinum" - just p
  • "The ambitious, quasi-industrial Outside (1995), conceived as the first volume in a subsequently abandoned non-linear narrative of art and murder, reunited Bowie with Brian Eno." gulp!
    • Gulp factor removed. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1976 he earned acclaim for his first major film role," mention the director Nic Roeg
  • "Bowie took the lead role in the Broadway theatre production The Elephant Man" - was he the doctor, really the main role, or the patient?
    • Changed to "title role". PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of your sources must make the point that, to be polite, Bowie's acting range is pretty narrow. As it is this is just a resumé.
    • Added an introductory paragraph to make that point. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general there is just much too much of one damm thing after another, and disappointly little analysis. There's nothing on the way Bowie at his peak became a cult hero in a much more specific way than other musicians. The prose is just about adequate, if unexciting, but gets cluttered with all the things being listed. Apart from London, and the period in Berlin, where has he been living all these years? What does he do when not doing music & acting? These and other questions remain unanswered. It's nice to see a major figure tackled, but I'm not sure I can support this without filling out these areas, though it is full and comprehensive as a timeline. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanded Legacy with more quotes making the point about his unique cult status: [2]
  • Also added quotes in the chronology about his cult status and impact, to supplement those added to Legacy and the lead: [3], [4], [5]
  • Added info about his life in Switzerland and his other interests; also about his moving to the US before and after Switzerland: [6], [7], [8]

PL290 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these bits (from the last point)? I can't see them. Otherwise improved. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffs now appended to my last 3 bullets just above. I think that identifies all the relevant changes; some of the additions have had minor copyedits since. The full diff since your original comment, up to the time I write this: [9]. PL290 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Now supporting above. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks good. I noticed some small references consistencies that need to be cleaned up. Ref 97 doesn't have a page number, and it and ref 123 don't seem to follow pattern of author name first. Refs 115, 117, 119 and maybe others I have missed have the first name first. You have The Independent italicized in ref 156 but not The Daily Mail in 159. Rolling Stone, an online magazine, should arguably be italicized, too. I italicized Playboy for you, and there may be others I missed. You may or may not consider Blender an online magazine as well. In ref 95 you have rockhall.com italicized, so should imbd.com be? According to Template:Cite web,

  • Work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.
  • Publisher: Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work).

and so in WP:DYLAN, we italicize almost all websites in References, but if you interpret the above differently and have a slightly different policy, fine.
I will have a closer look at the content of the article soon, but at first glance looks good. Moisejp (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have gone through the refs to check/fix format details. PL290 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks mostly good. Ref 130 is still inconsistent format: The Complete David Bowie by Nicholas Pegg (2004, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd) p. 561.
  • A couple other things: "China Girl" is described as having "caus[ed] something of a stir with its suggestive promotional video." Could this be reworded? Sounds vague and not encyclopedic.
  • Rephrased to be more encyclopedic. I also added a quote to produce better emphasis on the impact of Bowie's videos generally at that time. PL290 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about Let's Dance says it had three singles, but wasn't "Cat People" a single too? Also, in the lede it says the album yielded three hits, but "Cat People" reached #26 in the UK. Could that be considered a minor hit too? Definitely a Top-40 hit.
    • "Cat People" was a 1982 single, released over a year before the Let's Dance album. The version on the album is a later, re-recorded version. I'm loth to list too many singles in the lead, but the three mentioned were big 1983 hits (#1, #2, #2 in UK), showing the impact of the 1983 breakthrough with Let's Dance. PL290 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Now that I re-read that part, maybe it is clearer than I thought it was. Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess what confused me is that the Let's Dance (David Bowie album) page lists the song as one of the album's singles in the Charts section (although it does say elsewhere in the article that it's a rerecorded version). Maybe someone knowledgeable about Bowie should fix that at some point—though of course that's not a requirement for this FAC. Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've fixed the linked article anyway (added an explanatory footnote to the song's entry in tracklist and charts). PL290 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Acting Career section repeats info already mentioned in the chronology. Is the section even necessary?
    • I believe it has a useful function in the article, by summarizing Bowie's acting career in one place (which also includes some more minor things that would otherwise clutter the chronology) and also by providing the introductory narrative about the relatively smaller significance of his acting career compared to his musical career. PL290 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue looking through the article this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel this sentence in 1992–99 Electronica should be simplified (particularly the end of the sentence): "As well as performing "Heroes" and "All the Young Dudes", he was joined on "Under Pressure" by Annie Lennox, who took Mercury's part for the number one duet Bowie's 1981 collaboration with Queen had produced." Everything after "Annie Lennox" seems very wordy, and anyway, it was already established earlier in the article that the song was a #1 hit (in the UK). In this sentence calling it "the number one duet" sounds very British-centric, because, according to Under Pressure#Chart positions the song didn't reach #1 in many countries.
  • This bit also seems wordy and unclear: "The reunion led to a new collaborative effort. Among their earliest work together in this period was a reworking of Placebo's track "Without You I'm Nothing", in which Visconti oversaw the additional production required when Bowie's harmonised vocal was added to the original version for a limited-edition single release." At first I wondered, if "among their earliest work together in this period" presumably means they collaborated on other songs (early) in this period then what was notable about this particular track to be mentioned? When I read on to the next section I saw they continued collaborating around 2001 for the Heathen album. But still that doesn't really answer my question, since it is unclear when "this period" begins and ends, it's not clear if Heathen is another example of their "earliest work together in this period" or if only "Without You I'm Nothing" was "early"—in which case what was the other early work alluded to with the word "among"? In any case, could these two sentences be simplified to "The reunion led to other collaborations, including a limited-edition single release version of Placebo's "Without You I'm Nothing", co-produced by Visconti and featuring vocals by Bowie." Or if that's not precise maybe you can reword it differently.
    • Reworded along the lines suggested. PL290 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I would consider rewording "It was not without its problems" in the paragraph 'A Reality Tour'. And just double checking, but is Scheeßel the accepted English spelling of the German city? If so, fine, but it seems slightly odd to me to have a spelling that includes non-English characters (even Montréal is usually spelled Montreal in English). But I see even the Wikipedia article is named Scheeßel. Again, just double checking.
    • I've cut the phrase--it's bordering on editorializing, and the subsequent passage speaks for itself. The question of how the English Wikipedia should render German names containing the umlaut and eszett is an ongoing discussion (see, for instance, Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß). I therefore propose leaving it as Scheeßel to reflect the existing article name. PL290 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie worked off-stage and relaxed from studio work for the first time in several years." Does he "worked off-stage" mean he wasn't touring? I can guess from the context that that's what it means, but the phrase itself seems unclear. And "relaxed from studio work" means he wasn't recording much? Maybe it's OK, but after this you proceed to mention several recording sessions. I understand it's meant that he only did short sessions of a song or two here and there, but maybe rather then "relaxed from studio work", something more straightforward like "he only did limited studio work" would be clearer.
  • "He then announced a break from performance for 2006." But apparently besides the two surprise performances he did in 2006, he hasn't done any touring since then. Perhaps his announcement was only "for" 2006, but it could be confusing about how long this break was meant to last and actually has lasted. Moisejp (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Scanning over the references, I noticed that ref 113 has the mysterious page numbers 292–2. Also, some refs use the style "pp. 252–3" while others use the style "pp. 623–624". Moisejp (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs fixed. PL290 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page numbering system still seems inconsistent to me. Ref 87 is "pp. 278–9" (only the "ones" digit is given for the second number), Ref 92 is "pp. 294–95" (the ones and tens digits are shown—most three digit numbers seem to follow this pattern), while ref 89 is "pp. 280–286" (all three digits shown). There are other refs throughout that follow the first pattern. Moisejp (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done - a couple had erroneous "p." instead of "pp.", so they eluded my check last time. Sorry to waste your time on that; should be fixed now. The convention I'm using is to abbreviate the ending page number, but give it at least two digits where possible (so, "pp. 196–97," not "pp. 196–7."), except that a dash should never precede a zero, so closing page numbers in the first decile of each hundred are shortened (104–9, 401–7, etc.). Thanks for your close attention in picking up those anomalies. PL290 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my issues have been addressed. Moisejp (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media licensing review:
  • Oppose pending resolution of the first two. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that for an artist of this significance, with such a long musical career, three is an exceedingly modest number of audio samples.
    • Removed both images, unless/until resolution becomes possible. Is there something I can set in motion? Last time I tried to initiate something to get an OTRS ticket, I did not get anywhere, and I was told this is not something we (Wikipedia) initiate ourselves. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why does this need OTRS? The original uploader stated it was self-made. Ucucha 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first image has had its licensing issue resolved. The second still needs a proper source. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • After some digging I was able to identify that the author of the second image is also the author of File:UB40 Rock am Ring 1987.jpg. In response to my request, that editor on the German Wikipedia has now supplied the required information in the Source field. As the concerns over both images are therefore now resolved, I have reinstated both in the article.PL290 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks; oppose is now struck as I have no image copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— It's a pity that, in the section "1969–73: Psychedelic folk to glam rock", our understanding of Bowie's breakthrough as Ziggy Stardust is disrupted by birth of his son. Para on son, and estrangement from Angie, disrupts flow of Bowie's musical development. Could a section on Bowie's personal life and family take this info, enabling smoother flow on musical development? Mick gold (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a tough call. In any bio. The choice between mentioning topics during the run through the chronology (hence putting them in the context of other things that were happening at that time) and removing them to their own subsection. My feeling at the moment on this one is to avoid a separate section if possible. However, in view of what you say, I've broken the section into two subsections, devoting the second to the Ziggy breakthrough, which I think produces a better emphasis. What do you think? PL290 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still it wish it would flow from mention of "A girlfriend recalled his 'scrawling notes on a cocktail napkin about a crazy rock star named Iggy or Ziggy'." to Hunky Dory and then Ziggy album and stage show. The son and Angie are an important part of his personal life, but, for me, they get in the way of Bowie's breakthrough. Mick gold (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I're now resequenced and trimmed inessential details from the Hunky Dory para to minimize the diversion. PL290 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think your editing has improved flow. Mick gold (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Some issues (samples):
  • "In the technical school's unusually collegiate environment, Bowie, tutored by Owen Frampton, studied languages, science, art and design." Sentence is awkward: could be restructured as "In the technical school's unusually collegiate environment, Bowie was tutored by Owen Frampton, studying languages, science, art and design."
  • "Bowie re-named himself after the the 19th century American" Evident enough.
  • Since biographers explicitly attribute Bowie's choice of name to both character and knife, it's worth stating. PL290 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelling: "Few had succeded as Bowie did now..."
  • Spelling: "On the 40th anniversary of the July 1969 mooon landing..."
  • Punctuation: "Voice instructor Jo Thompson describe's Bowie's vocal vibrato..." Eep!
  • Fixed (eep indeed!). PL290 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: "Here, too, as in his stagecraft and songwriting, the singer's chamaeleon-like nature is evident" Chamaeleon? Sounds a bit POV to me here.
  • Not really; pick up any Bowie biography, and the writer calls him that. Elsewhere, the article includes the cited quote, "Bowie has become known as a musical chameleon". PL290 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiken (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments - beginning a lookover now. I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the technical school's unusually collegiate environment Bowie was tutored by Owen Frampton - um, why "unusually collegiate"?
  • It was an unusual tech. Someone else queried this earlier, and I tweaked the phrase; now that it's come up again, I realize I didn't really do it justice. I've now added a quote making the point clear. I think it's worth dwelling on to that extent, as it's a potentially significant part of Bowie's environment during his formative years. (Because of specific dates mentioned and the need to interleave with other events, it's now moved up into the previous section, Early years.) PL290 (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graduating from his plastic saxophone to a real instrument during 1962 - "during" sounds odd here, any reason why you've chosen it over "in"? (which sounds more natural to my ears)
  • No reason; it may have worked better with some previous surrounding text, but "in" is now fine so I've used that instead. PL290 (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The venture was short-lived - might be easier just to say how long it lasted, if known.
  • Done. No one seems to know the exact end date, but it's said to be "early 1969" so I've stated that. PL290 (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By now Bowie had stopped the drug use... - sounds odd construction - several options for rewording.
  • I've replaced it with a Buckley quote in the previous (Berlin era) section. PL290 (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs in the 1992–99: Electronica and 1999–present: Neoclassicist Bowie sections are a bit small. It might be good to combine a few of them if possible.

Overall, nice job. Pending looking at the above issues, I think I can cautiously support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds anyway. I can't see any clangers prosewise and was left to quibbles above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (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/David_Bowie/archive2&oldid=387639954"