Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Never Let Me Down/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Never Let Me Down[edit]

Never Let Me Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 87Fan (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was raised to GA a while ago, I've made some improvements to attempt to meet the FA guidelines. I raised it for peer review but received no response. Thanks and I look forward to any feedback. 87Fan (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a.

  • What are the Glass Spider Tour Press Conferences? I can find the records on Discogs but there isn't much information. Just Bowie talking? And there are multiple versions of it?
  • They're a series of press shows he gave - Q&A with journalists and fans, supplemented with short live musical performances. They are widely bootlegged, all with a variety of names. I referenced the copy I happen to have. Most are also available on YouTube (here's one).
  • The statement in the lead that the album "was considered a return to rock 'n roll for Bowie" is a bit odd considering it seems to be him who said that. Also, the term is generally standardized as "rock and roll" or "rock 'n' roll".
  • Fixed to be more clear that he's the one who was saying it - I agree that the passive voice was a strange construction. And I have adopted "rock 'n' roll" as the standard used in the article (thanks for the tip).
  • Need parallel structure between "creation" and "retiring": "leading to his creation of the band Tin Machine in 1989 and retiring his back catalog from live performances"
  • Fixed.
  • I've read this clunker a few times and still don't understand it: "Bowie had felt disconnected from his newfound audience that he had gained from Let's Dance"
  • Fixed.
  • Awkward: "For the first time since 1980's Scary Monsters album, Bowie played instruments on the record instead of just singing." Why not just "played instruments on the record in addition to singing"?
  • Much better, fixed.
  • Your use of quotations is not ideal. You are using a lot of Bowie quotations that don't seem particularly moving or profound. This creates the appearance that you're trying to avoid figuring out ways to paraphrase. They should be written in your own words.
  • Good feedback - I will take some time to re-write some sections appropriately and will update here when that's done.
  • I've taken a stab at this. In the top few sections I've removed straight quotes and instead written things in my own words. There are a few cases where I've intentionally left direct quotes: a few times when all we have is one or two quotes and so it's hard to synthesize anything beyond what he's stated, and in the 'legacy' section, where I would argue that his quotes are interesting because they show the way his feelings for the album descended over time and the power of those statements would be lost if we just summarized them in a sentence or two.87Fan (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie intentionally wrote the album Never Let Me Down to be performed on stage." What is the word "intentionally" doing? As opposed to unintentionally writing it for stage?
  • Removed, agree that it's redundant.

It's maybe GA quality, but the writing needs a lot of work to be FA quality. --Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback. I've taken a stab at addressing most of your concerns already in an attempt to improve the prose. I am still working on the feedback about over-use of quotes however. I'll post here when I've done that. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my opposition for now because I haven't had time to review your changes and I don't want to hold up the nomination. If I get time, I'll come back and have a second look. BTW, you don't want to strike other people's comments at FAC, as it is a sign that the reviewer (rather than the nominator) considers the matter addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've reached out to a few other folks who can continue to help with the nomination process. I wasn't sure how the whole strike-through thing worked, thank you for letting me know. I've unstruck what I struck. Thanks again! 87Fan (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not doing a vote here, but where the fuck are the sources for the peak positions of the Canadian Single Charts?!!!!!!!! Citing every single bits of info in your article, with an exception of plot summaries for games and film articles, is a requirement for this to become featured. 和DITOREtails 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EditorE, there is no need for swearing! Comments are supposed to constructive, not abusive. The nominator is trying to do what is suggested. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted in a recent edit to the article, I looked but couldn't find a source for the Canadian charts, so I marked them as citation-needed, as I figured that was better than having no citation marks at all. Thanks for the pointer to the charts article, I will use that to augment the charts - or remove the countries for which no source can be found. 87Fan (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found alternate sources or removed unreferenced Canadian peak positions. 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there needs to be sources for the credits listed in the page as well. 和DITOREtails 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll add this. 87Fan (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, added. I used Achtung Baby's example for citing the liner notes, as it's an FA article already so I assume its methods are acceptable. 87Fan (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why the hell are you using tsort.info to list international chart positions?!!!! That violates WP:BADCHARTS! You seriously need to check harder if the aritcle entirely meets 1(c) and 2(c) before nominating. 和DITOREtails 23:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More swearing? You tell the nominator to look at WP:BADCHARTS but stretch the limits of good faith yourself. Why not take a step back and calm down? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of this list. I'll fix the list to use acceptable sources, and delete the ones for which no source can be found. 87Fan (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found acceptable sources to replace all the tsort.info references. A few peak positions had to be removed (I couldn't find any reliable source, for, say the Polish charts, but a few new ones were added too). 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for what I said earlier. I would like to mention that the colname "positon" in the weekly charts table should be renamed to "Peak position" to indicate that number in each chart is the peak position to make it clear. 和DITOREtails 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology accepted; clearly you're passionate about this and I cannot fault you for that. I have changed the label as you suggested. 87Fan (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a few passes to reduce the amount of straight quotes and replaced them with prose. I think I've struck a decent balance between quotations and paraphrasing. I'm interested if anyone has other feedback about what else may have to change about the article to achieve FA status. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments taking a look now - will jot queries below and make straightforward copyedits as I go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your help in reviewing this! 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link RIAA in lead.
I meant bluelinking the word, not adding the source. done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its commercial success, this album was considered a critical disappointment, and in later years fans and critics have regarded the mid- to late 1980s period as a low point of creativity and musical integrity for Bowie. - middle segment redundant. I'd reword to something like,Despite its commercial success, this album was poorly received by fans and critics, who have regarded the mid- to late 1980s period as a low point of creativity and musical integrity for Bowie." (tempted to take the fans out here as it conflicts with the album selling well (???))
  • Done (I think removing 'fans' is ok as well). 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
he was looking to make this album differently. - umm, "this album" doesn't exist at this point - I'd say "his next album"
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure how to handle this when I was writing - I was afraid if I said "next album" it wouldn't be clear that I meant "this" album (as opposed to the album after NLMD). I have changed the text as you've suggested. 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite growing criticism in the press, Bowie said .... - ok, how can there be growing criticism if it hasn't been released? Can this be explained or expanded upon? Sounds interesting....
  • The basis for this sentence were Bowie's comments were made during his Australian press tour for the supporting tour, which were held in October 1987 (a few months after the album's release). So he had already been touring for 5 months in support of the album, but at the press tour talking about the album as if it had just come out... make sense? There was in fact growing criticism that he was defending the album against. I think we could move the statement to the 'critical reception' section - in that context the statement as written could make more sense. Let me know what you think is best. 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been thinking about this - I moved it to the critical reception section as it's much more in context there. Let me know if that's satisfactory. Not sure if it needs to be expanded upon there. 87Fan (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious/tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness as nothing else is really jumping out at me, and the prose is easy and comfortable enough to read that I lapse into "reading" mode without trying to correct it. I suspect there wouldn't be a huge deal of material on this album not already in the article. If anything, it would be nice to de-quote a couple more quotes but the ones I can see remaining are quite amusing and capture the essence of what their writers were trying to say well and in an engaging manner, so I'm a bit torn about this. This support is really dependent on some other supports here too as I might have missed things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC) holding off on supporting - not familiar with material on Bowie and if indopug is highlighting comprehensiveness deficiencies I will defer to him. Happy to revisit once the book is consulted...or another editor who has the book adds content to the article (sorry). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. What's the best way to get more people to take a look at this article? I already tracked down a few people (like yourself) to help out. I'd hate for this article to fail because of lack of interest from editors. 87Fan (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:BowieRaR87-stage.jpg: the author link leads to a non-existent article on de.wiki - is this a user on de or someone else? If the latter, how do we know the licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question... I don't know the origins of this file and always assumed it was something some wikipedian had uploaded that they'd taken themselves. I have no way of verifying however. 87Fan (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards oppose unfortunately, owing to failure to meet criterion 1a. From the lead:

  • Thank you for the feedback! This is excellent! 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a mention of the label that released the album, perhaps in the first sentence.
  • "Written and recorded in Switzerland, Bowie considered the album to be a return to rock 'n' roll music, and he conceived the album as a vehicle for a theatrical world tour."—dangling modifier in the start of the sentence, and the use of "vehicle" here is strange. Not the best start.
  • Updated to flow better, and use better sentence construction. 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy—"...the first two of which were top 10 hits in various countries around the world."—either remove "various" or "around the world".
  • "One of Bowie's better-selling albums to date, Never Let Me Down was certified Gold by RIAA in early July 1987...and it charted in the top 10 in several European countries"—the RIAA, and remove "it" here.
  • "...who have regarded the mid- to late 1980s period as a low point of creativity and musical integrity for Bowie."—more redundancy (no use of "period" here).
  • "Bowie himself later distanced himself from the album, but despite this, he admitted a fondness for many of the songs on the album..."—pronoun reference works better here since it's less repetitve (last sentence ends with "Bowie"). There is further fluff in this sentence: "Bowie himself later distanced himself from the album, but despite this, he admitted a fondness for many of the songs on the album [it]..."
  • Done, I like the flow with these changes better. 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In support of this album, Bowie embarked on the Glass Spider Tour, a world tour that was at that point the biggest, most theatrical and most elaborate tour he had undertaken at that point in his career."—repetitive "at that point...at that point".
  • Wow how did I miss that? Done. 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently now it's Infobox rules to use flat lists instead of commas. Here, I see this applicable to the genre and producer fields. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists? I hadn't heard - Done. Again, thank you - I've been dying for feedback and I appreciate you taking the time to check this. I hope the rest of the article is less problematic! 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Bowie said he would return to a small rock group like he had begun his career with..."—awkward phrasing.
  • I think I found a better way to say this.
  • Two sentences in a row beginning with "As a result".
  • Fixed (removed the second instance, by then the point had been made).
  • Avoid mentioning seasons ("summer of 1986" because summer means a different time of the year for people in the Southern Hemisphere. Perhaps "mid", "late", etc.
  • Good point, fixed.
  • "Bowie wrote the album Never Let Me Down to be performed on stage."—again, very awkwardly worded.
  • I fight and fight with this sentence. I've given it another go.
  • "For the first time since his Scary Monsters album..."
  • When beginning a paragraph, it's more coherent to not use pronoun reference right off the bat, like in the third paragraph in Album development. Use "Bowie".
  • Understood, fixed.

I don't have much time these days to do exhaustive reviews, but as you can see, there are problems throughout. I highly recommend another look from top to bottom for issues such as repetition, strange phrasing, lack of cohesion and redundancy. The prose does not flow as well as I would like (from a reader's perspective) and would benefit from a copy edit. PS: per MOS, do not list number of weeks in chart tables. Good luck! The Wikipedian Penguin 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll keep going through. Thank you again for your feedback. I had asked for peer feedback prior to the FAR process but nobody helped :( And, I've struck the # of weeks from the charts table. 87Fan (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lacks a narrative and not all major sources have been used—specifically, the Buckley book (which forms the backbone of the David Bowie FA). I urge you to look at the Be Here Now, Loveless and In Utero to get an idea of how FA-quality album articles are structured and written.—indopug (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok I understand this feedback. I don't think I have the time to do this (nor do I own any of the books that could be used for reference) and I doubt anyone else will take the time to edit this article either. I appreciate everyone's feedback and the article is definitely better now than when this process started. Feel free to formally fail the FA review. 87Fan (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2013 (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/Never_Let_Me_Down/archive1&oldid=1138467701"