Talk:David Bowie (1969 album)

Album Title

Why is the album being referred to as David Bowie (1969) when it has always been referred to as Space Oddity before? Space Oddity is still the official name of the album as evidence in the 40th anniversary re-release. This change is confusing as the album is still referred to as Space Oddity through out Wikipedia. Unless somebody can explain the reasoning, I say it should be changed back to its original title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.215.11 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The album was titled "David Bowie" when first released, and on the 2009 reissue of the album. 81.155.4.185 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover Image

Just wondering if anyone had any objection to me changing the album cover image to this:

I'd say it's better as A) It's exactly the same as when the album was first issued as plain old David Bowie, bar the "Space Oddity" titling, and B) it's the version that seems to be standard worldwide, what with the current reissue programme. The current image seems to be the US reissue, complete with a later photograph, plus the image isn't of amazing quality IMO.

Cheers for your thoughts,

Tom Prankerd 13:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom, many thanks for finding the original UK cover of the album which I've placed in the infobox as part of a big rewrite of the article. The RCA reissue I've incorporated in a new section along with the original US cover and the 1999 EMI reissue. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That'd be good

Yes, I think that replacing the RCA album cover to the one that was used by Mercury would be good. The RCA cover was only used on the RCA reissue and the RykoDisc reissue, while the EMI 1999 remaster used the (almost) original one. Also, the album is better known under its original artwork (this maybe just my feeling, but who says that it has to be wrong?).

Tom, I agree - original Mercury cover would be excellent if you have it. My only caveat is same as the previous comment: current CD reissue, whilst the cover art is 'correct', has 'Space Oddity' as the title. I can only source a black & white cover of the original 'David Bowie' Mercury LP cover but if you can find a colour one, don't hesitate! Cheers, Ian Rose 04:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I added cover images for the 1969 Mercury release (DavidBowie_ManOfWordsManOfMusic.jpg) as well as the 1999 CD reissue (DavidBowie_SpaceOddity_1999CD.jpg) to the infobox today but they were immediately removed by JD554 with the comment "insufficiently different from main image for identification and not discussed in article, these images fail". I suppose the sufficiency of the difference is debatable but they are certainly discussed in the article - in the "Cover art" section. Any consensus on including these alternate covers in the infobox? Based on the above comments, it seems there are at least some who would favor inclusion. Pugetbill (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

While they are (very briefly) discussed in the article, the discussion is purely a description of how they are different from the original. WP:NFCC#8 applies in that their omission isn't detrimental to a reader's understanding of the album. The brief description of the differences would suffice due to the limited differences. --JD554 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They were also previously deleted at FfD for this very reason, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_31#DavidBowieEMI.jpg and Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_31#DavidBowieMercury.jpg. --JD554 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I sympathise to some degree with both your opinions, guys. While I have to admit it's probably a bit indulgent to include the CD reissue cover, since it really is just the original UK cover with Space Oddity on it and a slight colour variation, and is so described in the relevant text section, I think the US Man of Words, Man of Music cover is not that similar overall to the original UK cover (even the portrait, while quite possibly from the same photo session, is not identical) and so should be included. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Voices in Cygnet Committee

Near the start of the song, in the background you can hear people talking. Are they actually saying anything? If they are, should this be included in the article as trivia? Dragosian 07:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections should be avoided. Better look for a reliable source and incorporate it into the article text. – IbLeo^(talk) 08:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Film???

Has there ever been a film based on Space Oddity and Major Tom?!? It seems like a no-brainer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.4.228 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

11 years late but there was. – zmbro _(talk) 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Space Oddity and Heroin

It has always been clear to me that this song is rather about LSD or similar drugs. Compare "I'm stepping through the door", as a reference to Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.49.167 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Clear to me" sounds like original research which is not allowed. You need a reliable source. – IbLeo^(talk) 08:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled 2CD in 2004?

I recall that a few years back, some time after the Ziggy Stardust 2CD reissue in 02, meaning ca. 03-04, there were a very few promos of a 2CD reissue of Space Oddity sold at Ebay and eil.com. However this release was cancelled by the record company for reasons unknown.
So the 100 dollar question is if the 2nd disc had identical content to the 2009 2CD or not. If not, it's tracklist should be listed in this article.
I am 99 % sure of the things I write, due to good memory, but can't find anything at the present to back up my story. Could anyone try to find out more and then include it in the article.

Best regards
Stein S., Oslo, Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.101 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Bowie (1969 album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will start reviewing this later today, though it may take slightly longer than my other reviews due to the article being large. --K. Peake 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Figured it would be. Take your time. Thanks Kyle! – zmbro _(talk) 19:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Zmbro Completed the first review section already! --K. Peake 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Should a comma or semi-colon be used to split the recording dates after 20 June in the infobox?

• Comma is just fine in this case.

• It is not notable in the producers parameter what track Gus Dudgeon produced

• Fixed. I've seen other album pages do that but I guess you're right

• "a new song," → "a new song, titled"

• Done

• "who agreed to finance production" → "who enabled financing the production"

• Sounds better the other way

• "Pitt hiring Tony Visconti" → "with Pitt hiring Tony Visconti"

• Done

• "his dislike of "Space Oddity"," → "his dislike of the song," because it is the only one mentioned in this para

• Yeah I guess you're right, done

• "for release as a single," → "for release as the lead single," with the wikilink, per the body

• Done

• "of Bowie's 1967 debut, the record instead" → "of Bowie's previous album, David Bowie instead"

• Kept 1967 debut because they have the same title

• Shouldn't they just be described as "folk rock and psychedelic rock songs" due to influences not being mentioned anywhere?

• Hmmm good point. Fixed.

• "a single in July," → "a single in July 1969,"

• Done

• "peaked at No. 5 in" → "peaked at number five in" per MOS:NUM

• It was done that way initially do I kept it that way. I'll go through and update all of them

• Shouldn't the UK release date be the second sentence of the first para instead, or is this in a different order than usual for a reason?

• So when writing the lead I had this exact same thought. I went with this way for chronological purposes, and because this album in particular had numerous retitles and such that I thought it'd be best to have them all together. Before I rewrote it it had all the different title info in the first para, which I found just didn't work so I went this route.

• "For its US release," → "For the US release,"

• Done

• Pipe music critics to Music journalism

• Done

• Mention Ziggy Stardust as being his fifth studio album

• Done

• "under the title" → "under the title of"

• Done

• "many criticising the record's lack" → "with many criticising the lack"

• Done

• "stated that the record" → "stated that the album"

• Done; definitely used "record" a little too much here

• "The record has been" → "David Bowie has been"

• Done

• "Space Oddity being used" → "with Space Oddity being used"

• Done, thought I had that originally, weird

Background

• Pipe singles to Single (music)

• Done

• Change debut album to debut studio album

• Done

• "also acquired a new manager, Kenneth Pitt." → "also acquired a new manager in Kenneth Pitt." or something similar, as the comma is not appropriate grammar due to this not being the lead

• I'm a little confused, as I'm not seeing what being in the lead has to do with grammar. I think it's fine the way it is.

• Zmbro Commas are usually used for introductions in the lead, like when you write "artist's debut studio album," for a common example. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• You can use commas more than just then... That makes zero sense to me. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and marked the end" → "with it marking the end"

• Done

• "Knowing the Love You till Tuesday film wouldn't" → "Knowing Love You till Tuesday wouldn't" since the film is the only release of the title mentioned

• Done; "Love You till Tuesday" is actually a song from his 1967 debut. Realize now most readers without context wouldn't know that, my bad

• Are you sure "opened" is the correct term for the film release date instead of "released on" or "premiered"?

• Yeah "premiered" is much better, done

• "appears in the Love You till Tuesday film." → "appears in Love You till Tuesday."

• Done

• "In April, Bowie" → "In April 1969, Bowie"

• Done

• "of "Space Oddity", "Janine"," → "of "Space Oddity", ones of "Janine"," because otherwise it sounds like they were other demos for those songs

• Changed to "and ones of"

• "(titled "I'm Not Quite"), and" → "(titled "I'm Not Quite") and" per British English

• Right, done

• Wikilink "Cygnet Committee"

• Done

• "Angela consulted with" → "Barnett consulted with"

• Done

• "of A&R, Calvin Mark Lee," → "of A&R Calvin Mark Lee," with the pipe

• Done

• "knew that the record" either change to "the song" or "the album" to avoid confusion with this term

• Done

• Wikilink Marc Spitz

• Done; tbh I completely forget some of his biographers have WP pages

• "screened him the Love You till Tuesday film" → "screened him the film"

• Changed to the title, as more than one film has been mentioned in this section

• "allowed Bowie enough finances" → "granted him enough finances" or something similar since I don't think "allowed" reads well here

• Yeah you're right, done

• "The new album would be" → "The album would be"

• Done

Recording

• "to produce" shouldn't you mention that this was to produce David Bowie, for being specific?

• Changed to "the new album".

• Pipe IT to International Times

• Not sure if Pegg means that, might be a different magazine.

• I would suggest to pipe to the other magazine, but since you are unsure which one is being referenced there is no purpose. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink Tony Visconti on the img text

• Done

• Pipe B-side to A-side and B-side

• Done

• Either change "insisted the single be released" to "insisted the single would be released" or "insisted on the single being released", depending on which accurately reflects the source's original wording (I can't access it)

• Cann: "The team are under the gun. Mercury insists that the track (backed by the dramatic "Wild Eyed Boy from Freecloud") is released as a single ahead of the Apollo 11 moon-landing in exactly a month's time." What do you think? – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Zmbro I believe the latter wording suggested by me is most appropriate then. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Done. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink Junior's Eyes

• It's already linked to Junior's Eyes (band)

• Zmbro Like the other instance, this is a redirect. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh my bad. Fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Mick Wayne, and an" → "Mick Wayne and an"

• Done

• "the release of the "Space Oddity" single on 11 July," → "the single release of "Space Oddity" on 11 July 1969," to be less wordy

• Done

• "Work on "Janine" and "An Occasional Dream"" → "work on the former two tracks"

• Done; not sure if I like it but it'll do

• "guitarists Tim Renwick and Mick Wayne," → "Wayne and guitarist Tim Renwick," per Wayne already being introduced

• Done

• "recalled that the band" → "recalled how the band" to avoid overusage of "that"

• Done

• Wikilink Paul Trynka

• HE has his own page!? I'll be damned had no idea, done

• "On 3 August," → "On 3 August 1969,"

• Done

• Wikilink "Unwashed and Somewhat Slightly Dazed"

• Done

• "his father, John Jones, was" → "his father John Jones was"

• It's fine the way it is

• Zmbro These commas are useless, especially when it's not the lead. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Again, I'm not sure what being or not being in the lead has to do with comma usage. But I'm not gonna fight over two stupid commas so fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "On 16 August," → "13 days after Jones' death,"

• Not necessary

• Wikilink "Memory of a Free Festival"

• Done

• "On 8 September, the band" → "On 8 September 1969, the backing band"

• Partly done; Feel like the reader isn't gonna forget what year it is after being reminded of it 10 times already...

• Pipe Pye Studios to Pye Records

• That page doesn't mention these studios so no point in linking

• Wikilink Marble Arch or pipe to an appropriate article if this is not the correct one

• Definitely don't think that's the correct one

Music and lyrics

• I can't access Buckley's quote so I don't know if it's a full sentence or not but if it is, then add a colon after "writes that" and if not, then move the full-stop per MOS:QUOTE

• It's a full-sentence. Added the colon

• "musical ground on the record" → "musical ground on the album"

• Done

• "that the album marking" → "that David Bowie marked"

• Done

• "the death of his father." → "the death of Jones."

• Not done. What's wrong with "his father"?

• Zmbro I doubt they are going to remember his father by name from a totally different section and he's the only Jones mentioned here. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Still. Saying "his father" seems more appropriate in the context of losing someone rather than using their name. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "depraved and barren."" → "depraved and barren"."

• Done

• "calls it a" → "calls David Bowie a"

• Done

• "distinctly late-60s hue."" → "distinctly late-60s hue"."

• Done

• "was a largely acoustic number" → "is a largely acoustic number" per this being about the music not recording, with the pipe

• Very good point, fixed

• Wikilink Stylophone

• It's already linked to Dubreq Stylophone

• I see what you mean now. Fixed – zmbro _(talk) 19:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Should hit be in single or double speech marks?

• Did some research, definitely double

• "and noting Bowie's admission" → "while noting Bowie's admission"

• Done

• "reflected a strong" → "reflects a strong"

• Done

• "describes it as an" → "describes the song as an"

• Done

• "collision of ideas."" → "collision of ideas"."

• Done

• "of that track on the UK Philips LP was" → "of the track on the UK Philips LP is" but keep as "was" if the LP is no longer available

• I'm sure they are still out there, but modern reissues on digital, LP, and CD all don't included "Don't Sit Down" so "was" seems appropriate

• "release of the album." → "release of David Bowie."

• Done

• "criticises its inclusion," → "criticises the track's inclusion,"

• Done

• "stronger without it."" → "stronger without it"."

• Done

• Merge the third para with the second one since it's only two sentences long

• Done

• "Bowie's former girlfriend," → "Bowie's former girlfriend"

• Done

• Is usage of "was" appropriate here, as I can't access the source so I don't know if it says the song were written specifically for Farthingale?

• Changed to "is"

• [23] should be solely at the end of the para due to being the only ref for the last two sentences

• Valid point, done

• Pipe folk to Folk music

• Done

• Use debut studio album instead of debut album and shouldn't you mention it by name?

• Normally yes, but since they both have the same name it's better in this case to just say "debut album"

• Pipe shoplifter to Shoplifting

• Sure

• "also recalled his" → "also recalls his"

• Done

• Remove wikilink on "Cygnet Committee"

• Done

• "as the album track most indicative of the composer's" → "as the track on David Bowie most indicative of the artist's"

• Done

• "Bowie himself described it" → "Bowie himself described the song"

• Done

• "of George Underwood." → "of Bowie's childhood friend George Underwood." with the pipe

• Done

• Remove wikilink on "Wild Eyed Boy from Freecloud"

• Done

• "was presented in a" → "is presented in a"

• Done

• "the album cut featured" → "the album cut features"

• Done

• Remove wikilink on "Memory of a Free Festival"

• Done

• Not sure if it should be "was Bowie's reminiscence" or "is" per my earlier comment

• Done (is)

• Remove wikilink on the Beatles

• Done

• "it was ostensibly celebrating." → "it ostensibly celebrates."

• Done

• "the crowd finale featured" → "the crowd finale features"

• Done

• Pipe Bob Harris to Bob Harris (radio presenter)

• Done

• Merge the last para with the above one per the length

• Done, believe that one was added by someone else that way

• "from the album sessions," → "from the sessions," to avoid overstating "the album"

• Done

Title and packaging

• "the record was released" → "the album was released"

• Done

• "Vernon Dewhurst exposed on" → "Vernon Dewhurst, exposed on" to avoid a run-on without any clause

• Done

• "by Bowie and Calvin Mark Lee," → "by Bowie and Lee,"

• Done, did I already introduce him earlier? – zmbro _(talk) 19:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, looks like you forgot about that initially. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove introduction to Underwood and only use surname

• Done

• "similar to the" → "similar to that of the"

• Done

• [42][21] should be put in numerical order

• Done

• "on an initial sketches by" → "on initial sketches by"

• Done

• "so pissed off with."" → "so pissed off with"." per MOS:QUOTE

• Done

• Remove double speech marks inside the quote with single ones

• Done

• "to on the album sleeve as" → "to on the sleeve as"

• Done

• Mention his next studio album by name and add the release year in brackets

• Done

• [42][21] put in numerical order

• Done

• "who played on the album" → "who played on David Bowie"

• Done

• [42] should be solely at the end of the para due to backing up everything after [43]

• Done

• "of the transparency."" → "of the transparency"."

• Done

• "Drummer John Cambridge later said" → "Cambridge later said"

• Done

• Since the third para is only three sentences, merge it with the final one

• Not done, I wanted to have each individual release be its own para for reading purposes

• Introduce Ziggy Stardust placement in Bowie's career and add the release year in brackets

• Since it says it was repackaged in 1972, that implies the release year

• Zmbro You still need to mention it being his fifth studio album. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Done – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "the album was repackaged" → "David Bowie was repackaged"

• Done

• Wikilink Haddon Hall

• Done

• "the album ""was" → "the album "was"

• Done

• "microcosmic and macrocosmic."" → "microcosmic and macrocosmic"."

• Done

• Last para looks good!

Release

• Retitle to Release and promotion

• Done

• "it was recorded" → "the song was recorded"

• Changed "the song was rush-released" instead of that

• "By September however, the single debuted on" → "By September 1969 however, the single entered"

• Done

• "at No. 48, slowing rising to No. 5" → "at number 48, slowing rising to number 5"

• Done

• "in his statement, which caused it" → "in his statement; this caused it"

• Done

• "across America" are you referring to the US? If so, then change to "the country" and if the continent, then use "North America".

• Done; believe it was just the US so "the country"

• "throughout the rest of the year," → "throughout the rest of 1969,"

• Not done, the reader isn't going to forget what year it is

• Zmbro You have only mentioned the year twice in this para, neither of which were in the sentence directly before this one. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fine. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "about its commercial appeal" → "about the song's commercial appeal"

• Done

• Pipe Christopher Sandford to Christopher Sandford (biographer)

• Done

• "and resulted in it" → "and resulted in the single"

• We're actually talking about the album in this case, specified

• "as the album's release," → "as the release of David Bowie,"

• Specified in previous sentence so don't need to again here

• "Music Now!, and" → "Music Now! and"

• Done

• "the album barely sold over" → "David Bowie had barely sold over"

• Done

• "peaking at No. 17" → "peaking at number 17"

• Done

• "at No. 16 on" → "at number 16 on"

• Done

• "The album's 1990 reissue also managed to chart at No. 64" → "The 1990 reissue further managed to chart at number 64"

• Done; also is fine

Critical reception

• "the album received primarily mixed reviews from journalists." → "David Bowie was met with mixed reviews from music critics."

• Done

• "Penny Valentine of Disc and Music Echo gave the album" → "Valentine gave the album"

• Done

• "calling it "Deep," → "calling it "[d]eep,"

• Done

• "after the album's release, praised the album, calling it," → "after its release, praised the album, calling it" to be less wordy

• Done

• "lacked cohesiveness and was" → "lacks cohesiveness and is"

• Done

• "Village Voice critic" → "The Village Voice critic"

• Done

• "considered this album, along with Bowie's follow-up, The Man Who Sold the World, to" → "considered the album and The Man Who Sold the World to"

• Done

• "the album has continued to" → "David Bowie has continued to"

• Done

• "Dave Thompson of AllMusic felt that although the record has its moments, he writes that:" → "Although feeling that the record has its moments, Dave Thompson of AllMusic writes:"

• Done

• "presented numerous ideas throughout the record, but didn't know" → "presents numerous ideas throughout the album, but does not know"

• Done

• "for dramatic effect."" → "for dramatic effect"." per MOS:QUOTE

• Done; guess I gotta re-read that lol

• ""artful glam rock"" → ""artful glam-rock"" per the source

• Done

• "but nonetheless, states that" → "but nonetheless, stated that"

• Done

• "a fans-only curio."" → "a fans-only curio"."

• Done

Aftermath and legacy

• "Following the release of the album, Bowie spent the next month promoting the record" → "Following the release of David Bowie, Bowie spent the next month promoting the album"

• Done

• "at Morgan Studios in London," → "at Morgan Studios,"

• Done

• "and lyrics translated by" → "and lyrics being translated by"

• Done

• "as a single in Italy" → "as a single across Italy"

• Not done, "in" is fine

• Zmbro I beg to differ when you use the word directly after the country's name as well. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh I see what you mean now. Done. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• [64][50] put in numerical order

• Done

• "completing on two days later." → "being completed two days later."

• Done

• Remove wikilink on Marc Bolan

• Done

• "to be split across" → "which was set to be split across"

• Done

• "on 26 June and" → "on 26 June 1970 and" per new para

• Done

• "had completed recording his follow-up record" → "had completed recording of" and remove wikilink on the album

• Done

• Remove wikilink on hard rock

• Done

• "hired a new manager," → "hired a new manager in"

• Not done, fine the way it is

• The quote box needs a source to back up Bowie's statement, plus wikilink BBC

• Well that's SUPER awkward have no idea how that happened. Fixed

• "have differing views on the album." → "have differing views on David Bowie.

• Done

• "had recorded before."" → "had recorded before"." per MOS:QUOTE

• Done

• "Spitz opinions that" → "Spitz opines that"

• Ngl I've never heard that word before. It's just another way to say opinions so I'll leave it be

• "rock records go."" → "rock records go"."

• Done

• "didn't have a "voice", and also lacked" → "doesn't have a "voice" and also lacks"

• Done

• "did have its moments, signaling out" → "does have its moments, singling out"

• Done

Track listing

• Good

Reissues

• Move this to being the section directly after aftermath and legacy instead

• Done

• "and are not identical for" → "and not identical for"

• Done

• Remove wikilink on Rykodisc

• Done

• Remove wikilinks on EMI

• Done

• "The album was reissued" → "David Bowie was reissued"

• Done

• Add the appropriate citation(s) for the last sentence of this para

• Couldn't find one for that originally. Not sure why it was still there so I removed it.

• "stereo versions and previously" → "stereo versions, previously"

• Done

• "and BBC session tracks." → "and BBC Radio session tracks." with the wikilink

• Done

• "remaster of the album" → "remaster of David Bowie"

• Done

• Pipe vinyl to Phonograph record

• Done

• "vinyl, and digital" → "vinyl and digital"

• Done

• "the album was remixed and remastered by Tony Visconti, and" → "David Bowie was remixed and remastered by Visconti, being"

• Done

• "vinyl, and digital formats." → "vinyl and digital formats."

• Done

Personnel

• Wikilink Nicholas Pegg

• Done

• Pipe kalimba to Mbira

• Done

• Pipe Mick Wayne to Junior's Eyes

• Done

Charts

• Good

Notes

• Good

References

• Copyvio score looks decent at 35.9%
• WP:OVERLINK of David Bowie on refs 45 and 85

• Done

• Italicise Space Oddity for refs 58, 61, 62, 87 and 90

• Done; lmk if I missed one

• Shouldn't you cite Robert Christgau as publisher/work for ref 67 and remove him from the title?

• Done; he's apart of the title but added robertchristgau.com

• Pipe Virgin to Virgin Records on ref 84

• It's already linked on 85

• Must have been the refs getting switched around after suggestions were implemented. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK of EMI on refs 85 and 92

• Only seeing it linked once

• Zmbro The refs are 84 and 92 now, but there's still overlinking. --K. Peake 21:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ohhh I see it now. Sorry about that. – zmbro _(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove wikilink on Virgin Records for ref 86

• Not linked already

• Publisher/work is missing from ref 87

• Ref itself was outdated; updated to standard

• Italicise Five Years (1969–1973) on ref 88

• Done

• WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 89

• Done

• WP:OVERLINK of Parlophone on ref 91

• Done

• WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 97, plus pipe Nielsen Business Media, Inc to Nielsen Holdings

• Done

Sources

• Pipe Titan Books to Titan Publishing Group

• Done

• Wikilink Da Capo Press

• Done

• Author-link Rob Sheffield

• Done

External links

• Good

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; wow, got through the efficiently! --K. Peake 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kyle Peake Done with a few questions above. I had requested a copy edit for this at the start of the month because I frankly didn't expect anyone to get to this until April so that would explain a bit of basic errors. Thanks for reviewing. – zmbro _(talk) 20:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Zmbro ✓ Pass now, we may have had some disagreements but most were sorted and the ones that weren't aren't heavy enough to stop this article's promotion!!! --K. Peake 21:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Kyle. Always appreciated. – zmbro _(talk) 21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)