Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Bowie/archive2

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 promoted by Karanacs 20:36, 28 September 2010 [1].

David Bowie

[edit]

David Bowie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? It's David Bowie. I look forward to your comments. PL290 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general there is just much too much of one damm thing after another, and disappointly little analysis. There's nothing on the way Bowie at his peak became a cult hero in a much more specific way than other musicians. The prose is just about adequate, if unexciting, but gets cluttered with all the things being listed. Apart from London, and the period in Berlin, where has he been living all these years? What does he do when not doing music & acting? These and other questions remain unanswered. It's nice to see a major figure tackled, but I'm not sure I can support this without filling out these areas, though it is full and comprehensive as a timeline. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanded Legacy with more quotes making the point about his unique cult status: [2]
  • Also added quotes in the chronology about his cult status and impact, to supplement those added to Legacy and the lead: [3], [4], [5]
  • Added info about his life in Switzerland and his other interests; also about his moving to the US before and after Switzerland: [6], [7], [8]

PL290 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these bits (from the last point)? I can't see them. Otherwise improved. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffs now appended to my last 3 bullets just above. I think that identifies all the relevant changes; some of the additions have had minor copyedits since. The full diff since your original comment, up to the time I write this: [9]. PL290 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Now supporting above. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks good. I noticed some small references consistencies that need to be cleaned up. Ref 97 doesn't have a page number, and it and ref 123 don't seem to follow pattern of author name first. Refs 115, 117, 119 and maybe others I have missed have the first name first. You have The Independent italicized in ref 156 but not The Daily Mail in 159. Rolling Stone, an online magazine, should arguably be italicized, too. I italicized Playboy for you, and there may be others I missed. You may or may not consider Blender an online magazine as well. In ref 95 you have rockhall.com italicized, so should imbd.com be? According to Template:Cite web,

  • Work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.
  • Publisher: Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work).

and so in WP:DYLAN, we italicize almost all websites in References, but if you interpret the above differently and have a slightly different policy, fine.
I will have a closer look at the content of the article soon, but at first glance looks good. Moisejp (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks mostly good. Ref 130 is still inconsistent format: The Complete David Bowie by Nicholas Pegg (2004, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd) p. 561.
  • A couple other things: "China Girl" is described as having "caus[ed] something of a stir with its suggestive promotional video." Could this be reworded? Sounds vague and not encyclopedic.
  • The paragraph about Let's Dance says it had three singles, but wasn't "Cat People" a single too? Also, in the lede it says the album yielded three hits, but "Cat People" reached #26 in the UK. Could that be considered a minor hit too? Definitely a Top-40 hit.
    • "Cat People" was a 1982 single, released over a year before the Let's Dance album. The version on the album is a later, re-recorded version. I'm loth to list too many singles in the lead, but the three mentioned were big 1983 hits (#1, #2, #2 in UK), showing the impact of the 1983 breakthrough with Let's Dance. PL290 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Acting Career section repeats info already mentioned in the chronology. Is the section even necessary?
    • I believe it has a useful function in the article, by summarizing Bowie's acting career in one place (which also includes some more minor things that would otherwise clutter the chronology) and also by providing the introductory narrative about the relatively smaller significance of his acting career compared to his musical career. PL290 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue looking through the article this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel this sentence in 1992–99 Electronica should be simplified (particularly the end of the sentence): "As well as performing "Heroes" and "All the Young Dudes", he was joined on "Under Pressure" by Annie Lennox, who took Mercury's part for the number one duet Bowie's 1981 collaboration with Queen had produced." Everything after "Annie Lennox" seems very wordy, and anyway, it was already established earlier in the article that the song was a #1 hit (in the UK). In this sentence calling it "the number one duet" sounds very British-centric, because, according to Under Pressure#Chart positions the song didn't reach #1 in many countries.
  • This bit also seems wordy and unclear: "The reunion led to a new collaborative effort. Among their earliest work together in this period was a reworking of Placebo's track "Without You I'm Nothing", in which Visconti oversaw the additional production required when Bowie's harmonised vocal was added to the original version for a limited-edition single release." At first I wondered, if "among their earliest work together in this period" presumably means they collaborated on other songs (early) in this period then what was notable about this particular track to be mentioned? When I read on to the next section I saw they continued collaborating around 2001 for the Heathen album. But still that doesn't really answer my question, since it is unclear when "this period" begins and ends, it's not clear if Heathen is another example of their "earliest work together in this period" or if only "Without You I'm Nothing" was "early"—in which case what was the other early work alluded to with the word "among"? In any case, could these two sentences be simplified to "The reunion led to other collaborations, including a limited-edition single release version of Placebo's "Without You I'm Nothing", co-produced by Visconti and featuring vocals by Bowie." Or if that's not precise maybe you can reword it differently.
  • I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I would consider rewording "It was not without its problems" in the paragraph 'A Reality Tour'. And just double checking, but is Scheeßel the accepted English spelling of the German city? If so, fine, but it seems slightly odd to me to have a spelling that includes non-English characters (even Montréal is usually spelled Montreal in English). But I see even the Wikipedia article is named Scheeßel. Again, just double checking.
  • "Bowie worked off-stage and relaxed from studio work for the first time in several years." Does he "worked off-stage" mean he wasn't touring? I can guess from the context that that's what it means, but the phrase itself seems unclear. And "relaxed from studio work" means he wasn't recording much? Maybe it's OK, but after this you proceed to mention several recording sessions. I understand it's meant that he only did short sessions of a song or two here and there, but maybe rather then "relaxed from studio work", something more straightforward like "he only did limited studio work" would be clearer.
  • "He then announced a break from performance for 2006." But apparently besides the two surprise performances he did in 2006, he hasn't done any touring since then. Perhaps his announcement was only "for" 2006, but it could be confusing about how long this break was meant to last and actually has lasted. Moisejp (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Scanning over the references, I noticed that ref 113 has the mysterious page numbers 292–2. Also, some refs use the style "pp. 252–3" while others use the style "pp. 623–624". Moisejp (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs fixed. PL290 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page numbering system still seems inconsistent to me. Ref 87 is "pp. 278–9" (only the "ones" digit is given for the second number), Ref 92 is "pp. 294–95" (the ones and tens digits are shown—most three digit numbers seem to follow this pattern), while ref 89 is "pp. 280–286" (all three digits shown). There are other refs throughout that follow the first pattern. Moisejp (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done - a couple had erroneous "p." instead of "pp.", so they eluded my check last time. Sorry to waste your time on that; should be fixed now. The convention I'm using is to abbreviate the ending page number, but give it at least two digits where possible (so, "pp. 196–97," not "pp. 196–7."), except that a dash should never precede a zero, so closing page numbers in the first decile of each hundred are shortened (104–9, 401–7, etc.). Thanks for your close attention in picking up those anomalies. PL290 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my issues have been addressed. Moisejp (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media licensing review:
  • Oppose pending resolution of the first two. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— It's a pity that, in the section "1969–73: Psychedelic folk to glam rock", our understanding of Bowie's breakthrough as Ziggy Stardust is disrupted by birth of his son. Para on son, and estrangement from Angie, disrupts flow of Bowie's musical development. Could a section on Bowie's personal life and family take this info, enabling smoother flow on musical development? Mick gold (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a tough call. In any bio. The choice between mentioning topics during the run through the chronology (hence putting them in the context of other things that were happening at that time) and removing them to their own subsection. My feeling at the moment on this one is to avoid a separate section if possible. However, in view of what you say, I've broken the section into two subsections, devoting the second to the Ziggy breakthrough, which I think produces a better emphasis. What do you think? PL290 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still it wish it would flow from mention of "A girlfriend recalled his 'scrawling notes on a cocktail napkin about a crazy rock star named Iggy or Ziggy'." to Hunky Dory and then Ziggy album and stage show. The son and Angie are an important part of his personal life, but, for me, they get in the way of Bowie's breakthrough. Mick gold (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I're now resequenced and trimmed inessential details from the Hunky Dory para to minimize the diversion. PL290 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think your editing has improved flow. Mick gold (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Some issues (samples):
  • "In the technical school's unusually collegiate environment, Bowie, tutored by Owen Frampton, studied languages, science, art and design." Sentence is awkward: could be restructured as "In the technical school's unusually collegiate environment, Bowie was tutored by Owen Frampton, studying languages, science, art and design."
  • "Bowie re-named himself after the the 19th century American" Evident enough.
  • Spelling: "Few had succeded as Bowie did now..."
  • Spelling: "On the 40th anniversary of the July 1969 mooon landing..."
  • Punctuation: "Voice instructor Jo Thompson describe's Bowie's vocal vibrato..." Eep!
  • Issue: "Here, too, as in his stagecraft and songwriting, the singer's chamaeleon-like nature is evident" Chamaeleon? Sounds a bit POV to me here.
  • Not really; pick up any Bowie biography, and the writer calls him that. Elsewhere, the article includes the cited quote, "Bowie has become known as a musical chameleon". PL290 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiken (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the technical school's unusually collegiate environment Bowie was tutored by Owen Frampton - um, why "unusually collegiate"?
  • It was an unusual tech. Someone else queried this earlier, and I tweaked the phrase; now that it's come up again, I realize I didn't really do it justice. I've now added a quote making the point clear. I think it's worth dwelling on to that extent, as it's a potentially significant part of Bowie's environment during his formative years. (Because of specific dates mentioned and the need to interleave with other events, it's now moved up into the previous section, Early years.) PL290 (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graduating from his plastic saxophone to a real instrument during 1962 - "during" sounds odd here, any reason why you've chosen it over "in"? (which sounds more natural to my ears)
The venture was short-lived - might be easier just to say how long it lasted, if known.
By now Bowie had stopped the drug use... - sounds odd construction - several options for rewording.
The paragraphs in the 1992–99: Electronica and 1999–present: Neoclassicist Bowie sections are a bit small. It might be good to combine a few of them if possible.

Overall, nice job. Pending looking at the above issues, I think I can cautiously support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds anyway. I can't see any clangers prosewise and was left to quibbles above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (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/David_Bowie/archive2&oldid=387639954"