Talk:Low (David Bowie album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:11, 6 October 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

Told you I would review this and my word has been kept! --K. Peake 08:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. It was copyedited by the GCE in late September so ideally there shouldn't be too many queries xP – zmbro _(talk) 12:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Are you sure it is appropriate to write that recording went on until November when only mixing is sourced as ending then?

• Fixed in both infobox and body. Both Seabrook and Trynka say October, which makes much more sense to me for a proposed November release date, also solidifying ("RCA delayed it for three months") – zmbro _(talk) 00:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The release date for the second single is different from the body, while the one for the third is not specified there

• Idk how that I let that slide. Fixed.

• Should it be written as 11th or eleventh studio album?

• Another editor has been going through and changing them all as numbered for "consistency purposes". So because of that we should keep it 11th. – zmbro _(talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "personal instability living in" → "personal instability while living in"

• Done

• "debut solo album," → "debut studio album," and add the release year in brackets

• The release date is mention in para three so doing that here is pointless. – zmbro _(talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't agree, as that is two paras later plus you are only adding the year here not the exact date. --K. Peake 08:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Really have to disagree. – zmbro _(talk) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "features a sound like what Bowie would explore on his next" → "features a sound like that explored on Bowie's next" or something similar, to be less wordy

• Done

• "After its completion," → "After the former's completion," to be specific

• But only Idiot has been mentioned so far...

• The sentence also includes a mention of "Bowie's next record"... --K. Peake 08:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ohhhhhhhh. Fixed.

• Again, shouldn't it be specified that the recording finished in November within the body?

• Already resolved per above.

• "Bowie and Pop's move there." → "Bowie and Pop relocating there."

• Think it's fine as is.

• It just reads awkwardly saying about someone's "move there"; relocating is definitely a better term. --K. Peake 08:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done

• Shouldn't there be a comma after Kraftwerk?

• Yes, added.

• Introduce The Man Who Fell to Earth as a film

• Done, good catch

• "to release the album" → "to release Low" since "the album" was used on the most recent occasion
• "Low divided critical opinion" → "the album divided critical opinion"

• Both done

• "at No. 2 on" → "at number two on" per MOS:NUM
• "and No. 11" → "and number 11"
• "supported it; "Sound and Vision" peaked at No. 3" → "were released in support; the former peaked at number three"

• These were changed by the copy-editor. Changed them all back.

• Should remain that way since this is the old format for numbers, while we should use the modern one. --K. Peake 08:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The single's success" → "The song's success" to be less repetitive

• Done

• "Bowie recorded Pop's" → "Bowie recorded for Pop's"

• Done

• ""Heroes". RCA released both albums released later that year." → ""Heroes", both of which were released by RCA later that year." since the second sentence is overly short

• Done, good call

• ""Heroes" expanded on" → "The latter expanded on"
• "and featured a" → "and features a"
• "ahead of its time and been widely acclaimed as one" → "ahead of its time and one" to be less wordy
• "in the years following its release." → "in the years after release."

• Above four done

• "later acknowledged the album" → "later acknowledged Low" but this sentence does not appear to be backed up, unless I'm missing something here?

• You're right that might have been reworded by the copy-editor, since technically only one reviewer (that I know of) has "acknowledged" it. Changed to "One reviewer later cited Low as a forerunner..." – zmbro _(talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Mention after the greatest albums of all time part "including ones by..." then list publications

• I originally did it like that for Hunky Dory but I recall being told to keep it simple in the FAC for that one, so I think the same should apply here. – zmbro _(talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Background and inspiration

• Is the plural really correct for the mental and physical states?

• Don't think so. Fixed.

• "filmed The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) while" → "filmed The Man Who Fell to Earth during the latter year while"

• Done

• "where he moved" → "where he moved to"

• Grammarly says that's incorrect – zmbro _(talk) 13:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "His intake escalated" → "Bowie's intake escalated"

• Done

• I managed to access The Daily Telegraph from the archive and "I was in a serious decline, emotionally and socially. I think I was very much on course to be just another rock casualty – in fact, I'm quite certain I wouldn't have survived the Seventies if I'd carried on doing what I was doing." are parts from the quote that you have paraphrased without using []; I would just change to the actual wording from the source since there is not anything overly detailed here

• How's that look? – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• A lot better! --K. Peake 09:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "with whom Bowie collaborated on" → "whom Bowie had collaborated with on" to avoid "with" being used too close consecutively
• Shouldn't you introduce Space Oddity as being an album?

• Both done

• Any idea what the one instrumental was titled before it evolved?

• Unfortunately nope. No info on that

• That's unfortunate, but this can still remain. --K. Peake 08:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "a more folksy sound," → "a more folk-styled sound," for appropriate language, with the pipe
• "John Phillips (the composer chosen for the soundtrack)" → "the soundtrack's composer John Phillips"

• Both done

• "the tour began" → "the tour eventually began"

• Think it's fine as is. Eventually implies it was delayed, which it wasn't.

• Mention what year the 7 May show was because it is at the beginning of a para
• Remove obvious wikilink on London

• Both done

• "Since leaving Roxy Music," → "Since leaving Roxy,"

• Music is a part of the band name, and they are not referred to as simply "Roxy" on their page so that wouldn't apply here

• Pipe German music scene to Krautrock

• Done, even though it's linked later

• "and Bowie exhibited a" → "while Bowie exhibited a"
• I don't think Krautrock should be wikilinked when the music scene is appropriate to previously pipe to it

• both done

Development

• "debut solo album" → "debut studio album" on the img text

• Done

• Shouldn't you write "David and his wife Angela Bowie" instead per MOS:SAMESURNAME? If so, write David Bowie on the next occasion to be clear.

• Done (the former)

• "the Isolar tour, and" → "the Isolar tour and"
• Pipe covers album to Cover version

• Both done

• "what would become Pop's debut solo album" → "what became Pop's debut studio album" and add the release year in brackets, as that is not even referenced until the next para

• Sure

• "During its recording," → "During the album's recording," since this phrase or the title were not used in the previous sentence
• Pipe overdubs to Overdubbing
• "as its music featured a" → "as the music features a"
• "the two travelled to" → "Bowie and Pop travelled to" per this being a new para
• "with Bowie's new way" → "with his new way" to avoid too many uses of Bowie in the sentence
• "to kick their drug habits" → "to erase their drug habits" or something similar, as "kick" is not encyclopedic

• All six done

Recording and production

• "sessions was guitarist" → "sessions were guitarist" because multiple people are mentioned within this sentence

• Done

• Shouldn't you add a comma after the Rebel Rousers since otherwise, it reads like this is a separate person from Young?

• Yep, done

• On the img text, I think you should write "served as a co-producer" in the part after the comma, so you are not mentioning the album twice on the text.
• "coproduced the album," → "co-produced the album,"

• Both done

• Third para and img look good! thumbs up
• Remove German band introduction for Harmonia, as you already introduced them previously as being a German act
• "soundtrack for them" → "soundtrack for the musicians" to be specific who the soundtrack was played to
• "described the mood during the sessions as" → "says the mood during the sessions was" because this is a book source
• "their off-time, and" → "their off-time and"
• "Iggy Pop was present" → "Pop was present" since nobody will think you mean the genre per the previous part and capitalization
• "Bowie was in a" → "The former was in a" to avoid starting two consecutive sentences with Bowie

• Above six done

• "He had personal conflicts with his wife Angela" → "David Bowie had personal conflicts with Angela" per MOS:SAMESURNAME

• Changed to "David had personal conflicts with Angela Bowie" since she was introduced earlier

• Is the comma really needed after manager?

• Nope, removed

• Mention what year mid-September was
• "Iggy Pop and Bowie's assistant" → "Pop and Bowie's assistant"
• Wikilink Nicholas Pegg
• Mention what year October was

• Above four done

Songs

Overview

• Wikilink Eventide H910 Harmonizer on the img text per MOS:LINK2SECT

• It's already linked with no redirect

• The guideline mentions about how you should wikilink to redirects rather than all that hashtag garble --K. Peake 09:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Like that? – zmbro _(talk) 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• [69][70] move to the end of the sentence because three refs is not too much and these are not after any punctuation
• "art rock and experimental rock." → "art rock and experimental rock, respectively."
• "direction; their album" → "direction; he explained that their album" and add the release year in brackets
• "recognises Kraftwerk's Radio-Activity" → "recognised Kraftwerk's Radio-Activity"
• Remove wikilink on instrumental
• "was about himself" → "is about himself" because the side still exists even though the material was written back then
• "time, and side two was" → "time and side two is"
• "all share a theme:" → "all share a theme of"
• Pipe EMS to Electronic Music Studios

• All done

Drum sound

• "describe how he did it." → "describe how he created it." on the audio sample text

• Done

• Shouldn't [82] be at the end of the first sentence too?

• Yes, added

• Pipe pitch to Pitch (music)

• Done

• "called it one" → "called the drum style one" or something similar, to avoid overly close usages of "it"

• "Drum sound"

Side one

• "a "bizarre" opener, writing," → "a "bizarre" opener, writing that"
• "towards the beginning of" → "around the beginning of" since "towards" is not appropriate for a beginning description
• "slated for inclusion on Pop's" → "slated for inclusion on" since this has been already introduced as his album and even if that was sections ago, he is mentioned later in this sentence which makes it quite clear
• "few tracks on the album" → "few tracks on Low"

• Above four done

• Img looks good!
• "from Visconti's then-wife Mary Hopkin," → "from Hopkin," since you already introduced her earlier in this article
• "to appear,[95] which was done" → "to appear;[95] this was done" to avoid overusage of "which"
• "it is the closest" → "the track is the closest"
• "repeatedly, and for Bowie's" → "repeatedly and Bowie's"
• "calls it "the" → "calls the song "the"
• "to settle, and" → "to settle and"
• "have suggested they" → "have suggested the lyrics"
• "played by Roy Young." → "played by Young."

• Above are done

• "It begins as" → "The instrumental begins as"

• I don't wanna do that as it's defined as such literally seven words prior. – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "solo by Bowie." → "solo from Bowie."
• "Its title reflected Bowie's upcoming move" → "The title reflects Bowie's move"

• Both done

Side two

• Pipe ambient to Ambient music on the audio sample text and it is not sourced that the song is ambient anywhere

• That's not true. That's impossible. Fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "on the studio piano. Eno used" → "on the studio piano and used"
• "Greatly influenced by" → "Heavily influenced by" since greatly is not appropriate language for a music section
• "for a time the piece" → "for a time, the piece"
• I don't think the term heard is useful since the instrument is not going to be noted if it is inaudible
• Wikilink xylophone
• "Bowie's saxophone solo" → "Bowie's saxophone solo as"

• All done/fixed.

Artwork and release

• "that as the film" → "that as The Man Who Fell to Earth" to avoid overusage of "the film"
• "the connection between the film" → "the connection between it"

• Both done

• The fear of poor commercial performance is not sourced

• Hmm that's odd. I know for fact one of them says it. I'll verify tonight. – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Seabrook states it but I realized having it there is derivative of the next sentence, so I just removed that phrase. – zmbro _(talk) 23:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "him to make an album" → "him to create a record"
• "delayed the album from" → "delayed Low from"
• "considered the record to" → "considered the album to"
• "Despite having no promotion," → "Despite the lack of promotion," to be less repetitive
• I don't think there should be a comma after 37 and move the first ref to being at the end of the sentence instead
• "it was kept from" → "the album was kept from"
• "four weeks later, remaining" → "four weeks later and remaining"

• Remaining are done

Singles

• Shouldn't you write that the song was released as the lead single from "Low"?

• No. Lead singles are usually released ahead of the album. "S&V" was released a month later, so that's improper terminology. – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe write "first single" instead then? --K. Peake 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. That also makes it match the second para. – zmbro _(talk) 00:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "with the instrumental" → "and the instrumental"
• Pipe B-side to A-side and B-side
• "Bowie's highest charting" → "becoming Bowie's highest charting"
• "It did not fare" → "The song did not fare"
• "signalling Bowie's commercial downturn in the US" → "and signalling Bowie's commercial downturn in the country"
• "by its use by the BBC for" → "by the BBC's usage for"
• "to release Iggy Pop's" → "to release Pop's"
• "it was promoted" → "the song was promoted"
• Wikilink music video
• Pipe CD to Compact disc
• "in 2017, on" → "in 2017 on"

• All done

Critical reception

• Put more of the Rolling Stone and NME reviews into your own words

• Will come back to this. – zmbro _(talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• How's that look? – zmbro _(talk) 00:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pipe "Heroes" to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) on the img text
• Pipe movie music to Film score
• "a similar sentiment. He found some" → "a similar sentiment; he found some"
• "praising it as feeling" → "praising the album as feeling"

• Above four done

• You should write something like a reviewer for Billboard since the publication itself did not describe the album

• Thought I did that. Fixed.

• "whose appeal was yet" → "with an appeal that was yet"
• "yet he found the album" → "he found the album"
• "Confounded by it he" → "Confounded by it, he"
• "He found it" → "Scoppa found the album"

• Above four done

Aftermath

• Img looks good!
• "to support Iggy Pop on" → "to support Pop on"
• "second solo album" → "second studio album"
• "played a minor role on" → "played a minor role in"
• "Lust for Life would be" → "the album would be"
• "in mid-June," → "in mid-June 1977,"
• Remove wikilink on music video
• "next collaboration. Recording for" → "next collaboration; recording for"
• Commas are not needed around "Heroes"
• "It followed the same structure as its predecessor, with side one featuring" → "Both albums follow the same structure, with side one of the successor featuring"
• "tracks, and side two" → "tracks and side two"

• All done

Influence and legacy

• Quote box looks good!
• "for its originality and is considered by Hugo Wilcken" → "for originality and is considered by Wilcken"
• "It has been cited" → "The album has been cited"

• Both done

• Introduce Goldring here properly instead of later on in the section and shouldn't it be wrote, as this is an online source?

• Fixed, and yes it should be, fixed that too

• Remove comma after Wire
• "of synthesised music."" → "of synthesised music"." per MOS:QUOTE
• "sound of the English band" → "sound of English band" because they have "the" in their name anyway
• "writer Colin Larkin recognised" → "writer Colin Larkin recognises"
• "Wilcken found Radiohead's" → "Wilcken finds Radiohead's"
• "to be similarly influenced." → "to take similar influence."
• Introduce Doyle here properly instead of later on in the section
• "that confounded the listening public's" → "that confounded his fans'" per the source

• Above done.

• Where is the part about prominence among underground musicians sourced?

• Shit. Will come back to this. – zmbro _(talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Added ref that should take care of it. – zmbro _(talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink Joy Division on the img text
• "writes the band would imitate" → "writes that Joy Division imitate"

• Both done

• Are you sure "whose" is an appropriate term when this is a record, not a person or group?

• Reworded to "a record which contains progressively darker track sequencing"

• Remove commas after Stephen Morris
• "how he did it asking" → "how he crafted the sound, asking"
• "heard on tracks from" → "heard on tracks ranging from" to be specific about what "from" entails

• Above three done.

• Remove full-stop after the first sentence of the fourth para

• Idk what you mean here... – zmbro _(talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Meant to put remove space before the full-stop here... typed this too fast oh dear. --K. Peake 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ohhhh I see what you mean now. Fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 00:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "of the English rock band" → "of English rock band"
• "when making the Cure's" → "when making their"
• "Low's "songwriting, mood and structures"" → "its "song-writing", "mood" and "structure[s]"" per these words being used separately in the source
• ""Some Are" (an outtake), and" →""Some Are" (an outtake) and"
• "recorded it at Glass's" → "recorded the symphony at Glass'"
• "in New York. His" →"in New York; his
• "of the record's instrumentals" → "of Low's instrumentals" to avoid overusage of "the record"
• "original record, and portraits" → "original record and portraits"
• "records: "Heroes" in 1997 and Lodger in 2019." → "records "Heroes" and Lodger in 2018 and 2019, respectively."

• Above done.

Reappraisal

• "critical acclaim. Some regard" → "critical acclaim; some reviewers have regarded"
• "Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone wrote he felt Low contained" → "Sheffield wrote he felt Low contains"
• "Sheffield concludes by" → "Sheffield concluded by"
• "one of his" → "one of Bowie's"
• "describes it as" → "describes the album as"
• "saying it complimented" → "and noting complimenting of"
• "on its release." → "on the release."
• "at the time of its release and its" → "at the time of release and the"
• "Some reviewers consider" → "Some reviewers have considered"
• "perfect ten out of ten rating, showing" → "perfect 10 out of 10 rating, saying it shows" per MOS:NUM
• Wikilink imagery

• Above done

• "Ron Hart of The Observer writes: "Forty" → "Hart writes: "Forty" and put parts of this into your own words

• Partially done. – zmbro _(talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Rankings

• "The Guardian ranked it" → "The Guardian ranked the album" with the wikilink
• "In lists ranking the" → "On lists of the"
• "number 16 and" → "numbers 16 and"
• "Stephen Thomas Erlewine describes it as" → "Erlewine described the album as"
• "later included it in a" → "later featured Low in a"
• "ranked it number" → "ranks it numbers"
• "the album was ranked" → "Low was ranked"
• "subsequently ranked 251" → "subsequently ranked number 251"
• "included it in the" → "included the album in the"

• All done

Reissues

• "first released the album on CD by RCA in" → "first released the album on CD in" to avoid repeating the label name

• Whoops

• "and was subsequently" → "while it was subsequently"
• "vinyl, and digital formats," → "vinyl and digital formats," with the pipe

• All done

Track listing

• Good

Personnel

• Wikilink Nicholas Pegg
• Pipe Farfisa organ to Farfisa

• Both done

Charts and certifications

Weekly charts

• Pipe RIANZ to Recorded Music NZ

• Done

• Shouldn't Billboard be in brackets instead?

• No, that's the typical formatting used for that.

Year-end charts

• Good

Certifications

• Shouldn't certifications come before sales in the caption?

• That's how I've labeled every table and no one's said otherwise.

Notes

• Good

References

• Copyvio score looks dangerously high at 70.7%; cutting down from The Observer source like I suggested will help resolve this

• You're kidding. I changed it to the full quote. How's it looking now? – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Copyvio still shows there is overquoting from The Observer, also either remove parts of The Telegraph source or reword using [] since that is at a score too high as well. --K. Peake 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why does ref 6 cite p. 234 when ref 51 could be invoked which already cites that alongside 235?

• Fixed

• Wikilink Rock's Backpages on ref 24

• Done

• Why does ref 39 cite p. 102 when ref 53 could be invoked which already cites that alongside 103?
• Why does ref 40 cite p. 387 when ref 63 could be invoked which already cites that alongside 386?
• Why does ref 59 cite p. 107 when ref 58 could be invoked which already cites that alongside 106?
• Why does ref 60 cite p. 264 when ref 82 could be invoked which already cites that alongside 265?

• All resolved

• Wikilink Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 70, removing the links for refs 71, 199 and 207
• WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic on refs 76, 117 and 169, plus fix MOS:QWQ issues with the second

• Both done

• Why do refs 127 and 171 cite p. 282 and 281 when ref 172 could be invoked for both these occasions?

• Done

• Pipe Radio.com to Audacy on ref 128

• Done

• WP:OVERLINK of Official Charts Company on refs 132 and 137
• Pipe Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 134
• WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on refs 141, 198, 210, 211 and 212
• WP:OVERLINK of NME on refs 142, 147, 192 and 208
• WP:OVERLINK of The Village Voice on ref 145
• Remove pipe on Billboard for refs 149, 167 and 241

• Above six done. I could have sworn I fixed all of these before nominating.

• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 160 and WP:OVERLINK of the author and AllMusic

• Done

• WP:OVERLINK of The Quietus on ref 176 and why is Low not in italics?
• WP:OVERLINK of Uncut on ref 184
• WP:OVERLINK of Los Angeles Times on ref 188
• WP:OVERLINK of Q on ref 203
• WP:OVERLINK of The Observer on ref 204
• WP:OVERLINK of the author and Pitchfork on ref 205

• Above six done

• Ref 223 should cite austriancharts.at as the publisher instead of the inclusion in its title; do the same with the chart sites in titles of refs 228 and 229, also add dutchcharts.nl for ref 239 publisher
• Remove dutchcharts.nl from ref 225 since there is a publisher in place
• Pipe Recording Industry Association of New Zealand to Recorded Music NZ on ref 227
• Remove www.ifpi.gr from ref 235, citing IFPI Greece instead and as publisher with the wikilink
• Remove www.officialcharts.com from refs 236 and 238, instead citing Official Charts Company and as publisher

• Think I took care of the above five

Sources

• Pipe Miller Freeman Books to Miller Freeman, Inc.

• Done

External links

• Good

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until everything is fixed; damn that was long, don't feel shy to ask me if you are confused about anything. --K. Peake 10:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Which pics aren't relevant? – zmbro _(talk) 16:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Zmbro I marked the content as lacking relevancy because the captions were insufficient in some areas, though this has now been fixed and I've flipped the verdict on the criteria. Numerous parts where you still need to implement changes have been addressed above by me, plus you missed the MOS:LINK2SECT and cutting down on the reviews and sourcing the fear of commercial failure. --K. Peake 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I forgot to check on the last one last night. Tonight I'll make sure to look. – zmbro _(talk) 12:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think that takes care of everything. I trimmed Observer down as much as I could, hopefully it's good enough. Thanks again for reviewing. Really appreciate it. – zmbro _(talk) 03:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Zmbro Even though Copyvio shows a good amount of coincidental flagging like the film title, there is still too much directly quoted from the source; put more into your own words at points where full sentences are not quoted. Also, you forgot to fix the MOS:LINK2SECT for Eventide H910 Harmonizer. --K. Peake 09:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• So part of the issue is that the Telegraph quote is in the Observer article. When I found that first I wanted to see if I could find the actual Telegraph article, which I did, so I cited that as well. So by having both sources it appears to be doubling the score so it might be best if I remove the Telegraph one so that the score reduces. Because if I reduce the quote anymore I might as well not have the box. I'm going to test it out and see if it helps. – zmbro _(talk) 15:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Update: Part of the reason is that the Observer article uses quotes that I cited from the actual sources and not the article. I'll continue trying but Idk how much more I can do. – zmbro _(talk) 15:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Zmbro ✓ Pass now, I was not aware previously that was part of what is matched up with the source and I fixed the LINK2SECT in some areas of the article where you missed! --K. Peake 18:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)