Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Idiot (album)/archive1

< 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [1].

The Idiot (album) edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the great punk rocker Iggy Pop's first solo album. However, The Idiot isn't punk rock (mostly). The album was produced by Pop's good friend David Bowie. Both wanted to kick severe drug addictions so they escaped the States and moved to Europe. Due to the much worse state Pop was in, Bowie composed the music, which reflected the German sound of Krautrock that he was becoming interested in at that time, while Pop wrote the lyrics, mostly in response to what Bowie was creating. As a result, you get what I consider a classic album that doesn't represent what Pop was about (he would show that off on the follow-up Lust for Life).

I've essentially built this article from the ground up. I mostly used Bowie's biographies (as most of his goes into great depth regarding this album), but I've made sure to incorporate multiple biographies of Pop's as well. During the GA review, I wanted to make sure the article wasn't too Bowie-centric and the reviewer did not believe it was. I still feel like certain parts are, but the unfortunate truth is Bowie was the dominant creator of this album (many initial reviews commented on this, and Bowie himself admitted it later). Nevertheless, I believe this article is in very good shape to become featured. I firmly believe it's in a much better state than my first FA Hunky Dory was when I nominated that initially. I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and concerns. Happy editing! – zmbro (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

  • Buidhe Removed the chateau image (primarily added it for more depth), and added more to the audio sample. If it's still not good enough I'll look into deleting that one and adding another one that's more appropriate. – zmbro (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I agree that's an improvement. Do you think that you could explain more in the caption in the article how this audio clip connects to the article text and illustrates sourced commentary? (t · c) buidhe 18:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments
  • I would add ALT text for the album cover in the infobox.
  • I have a question about this part, get sober proved unsuccessful, by 1976. Is the comma necessary? I have never been great with commas, and it is an area I really need to research further. I only ask because it does not seem necessary to my admittedly untrained eye.
  • In the context of the story leading up to '76, it is. The sentence basically states that he was addicted throughout most of the mid-70s; he attempted to get sober multiple times in '74 and '75 but by '76, he had had enough and finally wanted to get sober. Does that make sense? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have comment about this part, break free of his addiction. I do not think "break free" really fits with Wikipedia's tone as it reads a little more dramatic than I would expect for an article.
  • Would "rid himself" be better? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a better word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, Released before The Idiot in January 1977, the commercial success of Low, is not grammatically correct as the commercial success is being connected with the opening phrase and not Low.
  • Changed to "Low was released in January 1977 and was a commercial success, compelling RCA Records to release The Idiot two months later." that better? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is better. Thank for the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background" section, would it be possible to clarify Pop's involvement with the Stooges? It is not immediately clear to me how Pop was involved with the band.
  • I think it would be worthwhile to link demo as some readers may not be entirely familiar with the concept. I would link it in this part, (which he assumed were demos).
  • In this part, using a Baldwin electric piano, I would link electric piano. I know that it would put two links in a row, but I think the link would be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with the instrument.
  • I have a question about this sentence: Santangeli later expressed regret over the final drum sound. Would it be possible to briefly elaborate on why he was disappointed with the final drum sound?
  • Unfortunately Chris O'Leary does not go into more depth regarding this (he literally just states it and moves on). – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. The current wording should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the overdubbing article should be moved up to the first instance "overdubs" is used in the article (i.e. to provide overdubs on a few tracks).
  • This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. I have a question for this part,Retrospectively, commentators have categorized The Idiot primarily as art rock. It reads to me that retrospective critics have more often associated this album with art rock, and the other genres have either received less of a clear consensus or more influences or genres for parts of the album. So would it be more accurate to only include art rock in the infobox?
  • That's a valid point. I suppose it would make more sense to just have that in the infobox; I primarily just included all definite sourced genres that I was able to find. It also felt right to include them at the time as this album influenced quite a few bands in those respective genres. That's my two cents at least. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a tough one. You would know best so I would trust your judgement about this. When I have edited song articles, I have always been told to only include genres that critics directly identify with the song and to not include genres that are more indirectly attributed to the song as elements or influences. That is where I was coming from if that makes any sense. I am not the right person to have a clear answer so I will leave it up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further thought I removed the other genres so it's now just art rock, since it has been identified later as influential on those genres. – zmbro (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, with occasional German-electronic overtones, would it be helpful to add a link to the German electronic music article?
  • Do you think Krautrock takes care of that or would it be beneficial to add it anyways? – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably is, and the German electronic music article is likely too broad to be really helpful for readers in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the robotic link is necessary is it is a pretty universally understood concept.
  • For this sentence, Sounds reported, "If you wanted David, you also got the band.", I would also include the article writer's name since it is known.
  • This might not be necessary, but given how big of a role David Bowie had on this album, would it be worthwhile to include an image of in this article? I do understand your concern about not making this article too Bowie-centric though, but I still wanted to get your opinion on this.
  • I would love to but WP has literally zero images of Bowie from this period (being '76–77). Imo it would not be appropriate to have an image of him from any other year, due to his ever-changing appearance over the years. It's really annoying considering this was arguably his greatest period as a musician, but also considering how he went completely dark for two years it makes sense why there wouldn't be any free images of him. So that's why there's no image of him here. – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explanation. It is a shame that free-use pictures of Bowie are not available from this time period, but I completely agree with you that pictures of him from other time periods would be inappropriate and misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have never heard of this album or really any of Iggy Pop's music prior to this review. For that reason, I have focused my comments entirely on the prose and I cannot provide any real commentary outside of that. With that being said, I think this article is very well-written and engaging. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Much thanks for the comments! I have a few replies above and will add more background on the Stooges when I can (all my sources are currently away from me). – zmbro (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the quick responses. I have replied to everything above. Once the background information on the Stooges is added (and it does not have to be another lengthy as just a brief part on clarifying Pop's role in the Stooge is what I am after), I will support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 Added Stooges background. How's that look? – zmbro (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great to me. Thank you for adding this to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything in my review. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett edit

Addressed comments

I didn't know you put this up. I'll likely be too busy this weekend but I'll provide comments starting on either Monday or Wednesday. Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the break-up, Pop recorded with James Williamson ...: Specify that Williamson was in the Stooges.
  • Santangeli was dismissed at the end of the second day ...: fix passive voicing. Who dismissed him? Bowie?
  • Yeah Bowie; specified. – zmbro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Don't you think we could make a song wit that? ...: This quotation within a quotation has an opening mark but doesn't having a closing one.
  • Added. It was the next sentence that was the full quote. – zmbro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erich Heckel's painting Roquairol inspired the album's cover photo—which is a flopped image.: It being a flopped image fits better in the next sentence since it doesn't seem relevant to the painting.
  • It also spent three weeks on the UK Albums Chart, reaching number 30,[68] marking Pop's first top 40 album.: It was his debut album, so the fact that it was his first top 40 album is a given. Or does this mean that none of the Stooges' albums made it into the top 40?
  • The latter. None of the Stooges' releases were commercially successful. – zmbro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the Critical reception section, you summarize and paraphrase the different reviewers well. The first three reviews in the second paragraph however are simply quoted in-full. I would recommend paraphrasing them as well.
  • Paraphrased the first two reviews. – zmbro (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is now generally regarded as one of Pop's best works ...: by whom?
  • Hmm. According to the lead his fans, but I realize now that somewhat contradicts itself here. I'll see what I can do. – zmbro (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So upon further investigation, I cannot find anything calling this album one of Pop's "best works". Instead, I changed the sentence to "Although reviewers consider The Idiot good in its own right," with Pegg & Seabrook as sources, since the common thing I'm seeing is "it's a good album, but doesn't represent who Pop is". – zmbro (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-prepared article and I don't see anything besides the above. I made several copy edits and smaller fixes on my way through, so make sure you check that those are agreeable.

My experience with Iggy is limited to enjoying Lust for Life and Fun House, so I can't comment on this article's comprehensiveness. I wouldn't worry that the article is too focused on Bowie; it makes me think of my fiancé picking out, buying and then wrapping a Christmas gift before asking me to sign the card. Tkbrett (✉) 00:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey zmbro, I haven’t forgotten about this. I’m away for the weekend and only have my phone available, so I plan on addressing things above tomorrow or Monday. Tkbrett (✉) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're good! I still have to take care of the last two points. – zmbro (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett All your concerns should now be taken care of. Thanks for the input! – zmbro (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Unless I'm misreading, the lede doesn't cover any of the notable songs, or much about the album itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's necessarily true, but I can understand where you're coming from. From my experience, the one thing that keeps this album in the "public" conscious is it has the original version of "China Girl", but that's about it. Bowie's own version of "China Girl" is mentioned in the lead but what would you like to see more of? Like the musical and lyrical content specifically? – zmbro (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like more specifics? – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Combined into the prior sentence. – zmbro (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He'll never make it to the recording studios in time. Iggy's doomed." - in time for what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't specify. Since studio time was actually booked, I imagine he meant in time being before their studio time was up. Seabrook states that they had one day in the studio but after Pop failed to show up on the second Bowie scrapped the project, so that's my best guess regarding in time. What do you think the best course of action here is?; because in my opinion it's a really good quote. – zmbro (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correctly attributed. – zmbro (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He never showed bad form. All the shit I know, that's let me take care of myself, basically I learned traveling with Bowie on the Station to Station tour." - I'm not sure we gleam much here we couldn't put into our own words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "later stating that he learned all of his self-help techniques through Bowie on the tour." That better? – zmbro (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were further talks of Pop recording a solo album with Bowie as producer; Bowie and guitarist Carlos Alomar had written a new song, titled "Sister Midnight", and offered it to Pop; Bowie occasionally performed it live on the tour - I'm not sure semi-colons are right here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor Jim, in a way, became a guinea pig - am I assuming Pop's real name is Jim? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His real name is James Osterberg and Jim is a nickname of that so yes. – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very valid point. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Typically its customary for these charts to have the source next to the chart itself; that's also how the templates do it automatically. – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things above that probably need looking into, but it's in fine shape. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski Responded to all queries. Thanks for the comments! – zmbro (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Addressed comments

Non-expert prose review.

  • "he was ready to break free of his addiction." Break free might be WP:IDIOM. Suggest changing to "he was ready to end his addiction"
  • "Pop accepted an invitation to join his friend David Bowie on his Isolar Tour. At the end of the tour, Pop agreed to join Bowie," repetition of join. Change one to "accompany"?
  • Done (the first one). – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two settled into the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville, where Bowie agreed to produce an album." -> "where Bowie agreed to produce an album for Pop"
  • "Upon its release, the album received divided," What was opinion divided about?
  • Primarily on the difference in styles between this album and Pop's prior work (rock/punk). I think Doggett states it best: "listeners' perceptions of Pop generally influenced their views on the record." – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be outlined in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720 Forgot about this. I was thinking, wouldn't ", with many drawing comparisons to Pop's earlier work." take care of this issue, or would you like to see more/what exactly are you looking for? – zmbro (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs to be more specific. Maybe "with many noting a change in musical tone from his earlier work, which received mixed responses." This outlines that the divided opinion was about the change in musical tone/genre from earlier work. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720 Yep that works. I think that should take care of everything now. – zmbro (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered to have influenced post-punk, industrial, and gothic acts, including Joy Division." -> It has influenced
  • "and the two quickly became friends." Delete quickly
  • "causing Pop and Bowie to go their separate ways." Go their separate ways might be WP:IDIOM. Maybe "causing Bowie to stop collaborating with Pop."
  • Changed to "causing Pop and Bowie to stop collaborating." – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pop tried to establish himself as a solo artist on numerous occasions, but ultimately failed." -> What did Pop do to try to become a solo artist?
  • I don't have the book with me at the moment so I'll have to follow up on this later. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So according to Seabrook, after the Stooges broke up, Iggy was living in LA. There, he formed a short-lived band with Ray Manzarek of the Doors but this failed (Iggy was apparently at one point being considered as a replacement for Jim Morrison but that didn't happen after the Doors decided to break up). Pop also attempted to audition for Kiss as well (imagine that timeline). By September 1974, he attempted to join Bowie on his Diamond Dogs tour, but couldn't get access to the show and hotel Bowie was staying at (in LA). He was then arrested a month later for charges related to heroin, after which he went to rehab. I figured all of this info would be too much for this article so that's why I condensed the sentence. – zmbro (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this information would be off-topic for this article, but I think we can add a little more detail. Maybe something like, "Pop tried to establish himself as a solo artist and auditioned to join other bands such as The Doors and Kiss, but these ventures were unsuccessful." Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what I thought. Yeah that works, fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is note [a] important for this article?
  • You're technically right it isn't. Removed. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful," So far you have only mentioned one time that Pop checked into rehab. Are there others? His constant attempts to get sober should be mentioned.
  • Good point. Again, I'll have to follow up on this later. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His first stint in rehab was in later 1974 as mentioned above. At UCLA, one of his only visitors was Bowie. After a while he checked out but his addiction still continued. This is where Bowie and Pop tried to record an album but Iggy sunk deeper and deeper (hence the "Iggy's doomed" quote). They went their separate ways, Pop sunk deeper and checked into rehab again. At this point it's 1976. Rehab isn't working so he decides enough is enough, so he then joins Bowie on tour and the rest is history. – zmbro (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it looks like he was in rehab twice, once in 1974 and a second time in 1976. Maybe, "Pop's stints in rehab in 1974 and 1976 were unsuccessful," Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful, and according to biographer Thomas Jerome Seabrook, by 1976, he was reaching his "lowest point". -> "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful and his biographer, Thomas Jerome Seabrook, described Pop as reaching his "lowest point" in 1976." To reduce the commas
  • Seabrook is actually Bowie's biographer, not Pop's. He just goes into great depth on The Idiot and Lust for Life because Bowie was heavily involved in the making of both; so saying "his" in that instance wouldn't technically be accurate. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this wording, I thought Seabrook was Pop's biographer. Maybe, "Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful and Bowie's biographer, Thomas Jerome Seabrook, described Pop as reaching his "lowest point" in 1976." Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep that's good. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to clean up his act," Another idiom. Replace with "to become sober"
  • "in support of Bowie's album Station to Station (1976)" Is this detail necessary?
  • I guess not THAT necessary. Removed. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they wanted to escape the drug culture of Los Angeles" -> "wanted to avoid" While on tour they were probably not part of the LA drug culture because they weren't there, so I think avoid is a better word.
  • Done. I believe "escape" was used in the Low article. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then returned to his new home in Switzerland." Is this detail important for this article?
  • Not really (I've noticed I sometimes tend to go overboard in the detailing). – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to know when it's too much or too little detail, which is why I like FAC reviewers. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the former bassist of the French band Magma," I don't know if this is important, and maybe can be removed
  • I actually think it helps give some musical background, so it doesn't appear as though they told a studio owner "hey, play bass for us." At least that's how I see it. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with keeping it then. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "("Vampiric would be the perfect word", he said later)." The perfect word for what? Expand.
  • I believe in this instance it would be what's being said in the sentence before it. Perhaps I could change the sentence to: "Palmer found the creative collaboration with Pop and Bowie "Vampiric", meaning stimulating but disquieting, never seeing them around during the daytime." What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about "Palmer described the creative collaboration with Pop and Bowie as "vampiric" because he never saw the artists during the daytime and the collaboration was stimulating but disquieting." Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep that works. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last track recorded for The Idiot was "Nightclubbing", after the other musicians had left, with Bowie playing the melody on piano using an old drum machine for backing." Either remove "after the other musicians had left" or put "recorded after the other musicians had left"
  • "The success of "Sound and Vision" in the UK confused RCA executives." I think this is off-topic for this article.
  • Changed the sentence to "The success of "Sound and Vision" allowed Bowie to persuade RCA to release The Idiot," – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie intimidated the label and persuaded them to release The Idiot," Did he intimidate or persuade the label? Pick one.
  • Fixed by the above comment. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lead singer of Joy Division Ian Curtis committed suicide in 1980 with The Idiot still playing on his turntable." This feels random in this paragraph, as the rest of the prose talks about the album's influence on different music genres. I would delete.
  • I do think it's a really interesting detail but I see your point. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs in the Sources either need to be 10-digit or 12-digit
  • "Christgau, Robert (1981)." and "Coleman, Mark; Kemp, Rob (2004)." are missing the city they were published in.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are all responded to. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Thanks for the comments. I have replied to all queries, although I have noted there are a few things I won't be able to look into until later because I don't have the books on hand currently. – zmbro (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. Please ping when you find more information about the things you are looking into. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 Replies related to the book items are above. Let me know what you think I should add. – zmbro (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: replies to solo artist and stints in rehab comments are above. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

zmbro, while this is your second FAC it seems that the first didn't get the usual first-timer's spot check - do correct me if I am wrong about this. So I would like to see one for this article and have added this to requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild If I recall correctly, source reviewing for Hunky Dory was done via the numerous editors that voiced their support in promoting (it wasn't in its own section). But yes that sounds perfectly fine with me. Like you said I'm still pretty new to FAC so if I ever do anything wrong please do not hesitate to say so. – zmbro (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, FWIW I reviewed Hunky Dory at GAN and treated it as a potential FAC so conducted a spotcheck of several sources. From memory there were some instances of close paraphrasing but little or no inaccurate usage, and ultimately I was satisfied with the spotcheck. If I'd had the time to complete a review of the article at FAC I'd have probably mentioned this then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, that covers it then. I'll remove the note from Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Unless I'm missing something it looks like all queries have been resolved. – zmbro (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • "Krautrock, a genre Bowie would fully experiment with on Low" - source?
  • Added. Changed "fully" to "further" – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:ALLMUSIC, this source is of questionable reliability for biographical details
  • Hmm. Per WP:RSMUSIC both biographies and reviews are reliable, but also gives the genres as unreliable. I'll see what I can find. – zmbro (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Vinyl District a high-quality reliable source? Totally Stockholm? Creem? Blender? Stereogum? Repeater? Jawbone?
  • I asked about Vinyl District here, but the two editors that responded said yes and no. So since we're unsure I'll remove it – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at it now, Totally Stockholm looks like a website guide to the city of Stockholm, which to me doesn't scream as reliable for something like this. Removed that – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion here calls Creem reliable, and based on my research, it had a ton of editorial oversight, lots of different writers, and was one of the most popular music magazines in the US during its run. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blender is listed as reliable under WP:RSMUSIC – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That table links to a 2009 discussion that is not about Blender. Why is it listed as being reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's strange. I primarily used it here because I saw it was in the table, meaning somewhere down the line it was considered reliable. – zmbro (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the discussions here and here, it appears other editors have identified Stereogum as reliable. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see strong rationales for reliability in those discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started a new discussion at WPAlbums; hopefully we can get a definitive answer. – zmbro (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher of a book shouldn't determine whether a book or reliable or not (in this instance). In The Complete David Bowie, Nicholas Pegg praises Chris O'Leary's Rebel Rebel (Ashes to Ashes had yet to be published), but he cites O'Leary as "a significant contributor to the field of Bowieology" and recognizes him as a reliable biographer, so I have no doubt what he states is reliable. Pegg furthermore cites Seabrook's book Bowie in Berlin as "packed with insight, offering a thorough, perceptive and well written account of Bowie's 1976–1979 period." With this being said I also fully trust Seabrook as a source. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to cite two different editions of Buckley? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I own the 2005 edition. I believe when I was expanding I was able to find most of the same info (+ more) in the 2005 edition but couldn't find other bits of info sourced in the 1999 edition. I can do a run-through of the 2005 edition later but I agree with you I don't like using two different versions either. – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably wrote the material cited to the 1999 edition because that was the one I owned. I'd have thought anything there would be in later editions but you never know. If we're desperate I could double-check stuff in the 1999... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ian and zmbro, has the 1999/2005 thing been resolved? If so, assuming there are no other unaddressed comments, could you ping Nikkimaria? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild Yep it is taken care of. I was able to find everything in the 2005 edition. I also replaced AllMusic bio with Rolling Stone and The New Yorker and, based on my findings, Stereogum is reliable. Nikkimaria Re-pinging. – zmbro (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria Got confirmation for Blender here. The Chicago Tribune also named it one of the top ten English-language magazines in 2006, which gives it more credibility. The Stereogum findings are here. Their about us page lists multiple writers and editors so the site has editorial oversight. It has also been around for quite a few years at this point, which earns it more credibility when it comes to reliability. – zmbro (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither being print nor being around for a while ensure that a source is high-quality (the National Enquirer has been in print since 1926). What is Stereogum's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria According to their about us page, they have three primary writers, a senior news editor, a senior editor, and the editor-in-chief (who's also the founder). The page doesn't give much more info than that. – zmbro (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced on the quality of these two still. What about the authors? Anything to suggest reliability on that basis? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria If we're being honest I can just go ahead and remove them. Blender right now is only in the review table and Stereogum is being used for a review. Losing those won't really change much for the article so if you're cool with that then that's what I'll do, just so we don't have to drag this out any longer. – zmbro (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2021 (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/The_Idiot_(album)/archive1&oldid=1041240797"