Talk:David Bowie (1967 album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 14:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promised I'd get to this one – sorry it took so long though! Tkbrett (✉) 14:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on opening this and not doing it right away. Been a long week ... Anyway, no more excuses!

Shiiiit completely forgot about this. Can no longer edit as much as I used to so things slips away. I promise I'll get to this tomorrow! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 05:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I'll be gone for the weekend, so the soonest I'll be able to finish the review is likely Monday. As long as we're on the same page, I don't think anyone else cares. Again, they should really be paying us more ... Tkbrett (✉) 12:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top and lead

Perhaps a Distinguish template pointing to David Bowie (1969 album)?

Done

Writing and recording

... decided that Bowie would cease live performances due to poor finances ...: what does this mean? If he had poor finances, wouldn't he have wanted to continue doing live performances to have a stream of income? Or does it mean his live shows weren't bringing in much money?

They halted live performances so David could focus on recording the album – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be reworded to make it clearer? Tkbrett (✉) 18:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond the scope of the GA criteria, so if you don't want to change it it won't affect whether it passes or not, but there's a MOS:SANDWICH issue between the quotebox and image of Vernon.

Wish I could fix that my imo it's important to have both. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any explanation of why some tracks had different versions between the singles and album tracks? Seems a little strange to spend the money on the extra effort without a good reason.

I honestly wish I had that answer for a lot of his remakes, particularly "Sue", "'Tis" and "Prettiest Star". For "Rubber Band" (from my understanding) it was so there would be a consistency in sound (MV didn't produce the original). For the others I couldn't tell ya. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Style and themes

According to biographer Chris O'Leary, David Bowie found Bowie composing third-person narratives compared to the first-person love stories of previous releases: Whose previous releases? Bowie's? Or just pop music in general?

Bowie's. Clarified – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The American release, issued in August 1967, omitted "We Are Hungry Men" and "Maid of Bond Street", which Pegg speculates was possibly due to the US practice of trimming track listings in order to "reduce publishing royalties": Almost definitely. There's an article on the first page of the March 4, 1967 issue of Billboard (link) which states that the standard for American LPs was 12 tracks, though the alarming trend that article discusses it that more and more 10- and 11-track LPs were showing up; bad for the buyer, good for the record companies. Here's a helpful explainer from Michael Frontani: British albums typically contained fourteen tracks, and royalties were paid as a percentage on total albums sold. In the U.S., publishers were (and are) paid a mechanical licensing fee for each song that appeared on the album. As a result, more songs would mean more publishing fees that would have to be paid. (The Beatles : Image and the Media, University of Mississippi Press, 2007, p. 53).

You're saying I should add this to the article? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially necessary, but it may be helpful if you want to ever improve it to FA status. I guess this is the only Bowie album made in the pre-Pepper era, and so is the only one where the American record company still screwed around with track listings. Tkbrett (✉) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I ever will tbh. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other sections

Good.

Final comments and verdict

Well referenced, as always.
Copyvio score of 55.1% only due to quote boxes. No issues here.
Images are PD or appropriately tagged.
I made changes as I read through, so make sure you don't have any issues with those.

Tkbrett As always thanks for reviewing Tk! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No more need to hold this up. Thanks! Always a pleasure. Tkbrett (✉) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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