Wikipedia

Talk:Hunky Dory/GA1

< Talk:Hunky Dory
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Zmbro in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago42 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


Not actually one of my fave Bowie albums overall but its importance to his career is pretty obvious so I can hardly resist -- give me a few days to read, tweak and review this greatly expanded article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for taking it on! Yeah it wasn't one of my favs when I started expansion but as I added more and more it grew on me a lot and now it's one of my favorite albums period. After this I'm planning on doing a peer review then taking it to FAC. Thanks again for your help! :-) – zmbro (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ian Rose Quick side note: Thanks for trimming down the song info. I had worried that I was being too detailed, especially regarding "Changes". I had primarily taken the info from its song page that I expanded a while ago and was just one of those instances where I was so on a roll that I didn't know when enough was enough. Trim as much as you think is necessary. I thought about adding a little more info on "Queen Bitch" but if you don't think it's necessary I won't. I'd love to know your thoughts. – zmbro (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ian Rose Status on this? – zmbro (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, after the prose pass I have some comments to add that I've been compiling off-wiki, as well as the sourcing review, so will be another few days possibly. Cheers, 22:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

edit
Well written

Obviously I've copyedited so generally happy with the prose; one point:

  • We mention Ronson and Woodmansey leaving primarily because they were disgruntled with him on top of not being paid for their performances -- aside from being a bit awkward grammatically, I think this needs clarification: why disgruntled apart from not being paid, and for what were they not paid, the MWSTW sessions, live performances, or what?
  • Cann doesn't specify this. All Cann says is: "Mick Ronson and Woody Woodmansey are also disgruntled with David and in particular the lack of money (they have never been offered a wage) [the book is written in present tense]. Pegg doesn't talk about it at all so based on that I assume it means they weren't paid for The Man Who Sold the World and they, like Tony Visconti, didn't like Bowie's dismissive attitude during those sessions. What do you think it should be changed to?
  • Well first of all re-using the term "disgruntled" is paraphrasing too closely. I would change the sentence to something like Mick Ronson and Woody Woodmansey, who played guitar and drums respectively on The Man Who Sold the World, and had never been offered steady pay for their performances, also departed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Sorry but I don't think this edit is a net improvement. I appreciate you considering how to reduce quotes but this might be trying too hard. IMO substituting Hunky Dory features songs characterised by commentators as pop. Numerous styles are also present, including art pop, glam rock, folk, as well as country. in place of Michael Gallucci of Ultimate Classic Rock notes that it is Bowie's first album to include "a mix of pop, glam, art and folk wrapped in an ambisexual pose that would come to define the artist." is substituting a laundry list for a good punchy quote. I don't think a new set of quote fragments (Biographer Christopher Sandford states that the songs have a "lush ambiance" to them that give them an "easy-listening" quality) adds much, and changing "a kaleidoscopic array of pop styles, tied together only by Bowie's sense of vision: a sweeping, cinematic mélange of high and low art, ambiguous sexuality, kitsch, and class" to the various styles tie together only by Bowie's sense of vision: "a sweeping, cinematic mélange of high and low art, ambiguous sexuality, kitsch, and class" doesn't include such a high degree of good paraphrasing that it beats the previous version. I'd recommend that you go back to the original and don't try rewriting things much to reduce the quotes at this stage. What I was trying to say before is that when you get to PR and FAC, that might be suggested, but I wouldn't be second-guessing it, just be prepared for it. Let's get through GAN, then you can throw it at PR and see what several people (perhaps including me again) think of it, and if they suggest rewrites then do it before FAC. IMO you have a good solid article here and I wouldn't rewrite it except to specific reviewers' suggestions (mine now in GAN, and others' at PR and then, finally, at FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Reverted back to versions before those strings of edits. – zmbro (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Verifiable with no original research
  • Formatting-wise, the Sources sections could use some tidying, particularly before a run at FAC: Pegg could be linked, and there might be other notable authors; some of the books lack publishing locations and in some cases where present the location is just the country, e.g. "UK", when it should be city. The Buckley books are a good template for how the refs should be formatted.
  • Reliability-wise, the works under the Sources section look okay and some of course, like Pegg, are no-brainers. I'll check on reliability of other works in the References section as I run a spotcheck for accurate use of the refs and avoidance of close paraphrasing (below):
    • FN7: Not sure that Influenced by diverse musical genres is supported, the article seems to just mention folkie singer-songwriters like James Taylor and Cat Stevens. Also the Velvet Underground are not specifically mentioned in the source, just Lou Reed. I daresay you could find another source that helped support the text as is, but the current one doesn't seem to entirely.
  • Cann took care of VU but not the other thing. I can't find anything supporting it as I must have thought Greene said it. Just removed the Influenced by diverse musical genres part. – zmbro (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • FN24: Accurate use of source but a bit too closely paraphrased I think -- found it quicker to tweak myself.
    • FN39: Jim Butler in Produce Business Today doesn't seem a very authoritative source for Bowie song genres/styles, and I couldn't see the term "art pop" in Doggett either.
    • Yeah when I was expanding the article for "Changes" I saw that it was sourced and I thought well that's dumb and unreliable so I removed it but then went back and found that it's somehow the ONLY source I've found that has stated the genre as "art pop". Even Pegg and O'Leary sometimes don't go into specific genres that much, which is annoying. – zmbro (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • If Produce Business Today is the only source that says art pop then I think we have an issue -- personally I find it surprising as art pop seems a logical categorisation to me but my opinion doesn't carry any weight and I don't think Produce Business Today's does much either. I notice AllMusic puts "pop/rock" at the top, do Doggett, Pegg and Buckley, to name a few, offer succinct opinion on the genre? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Nope they don't. Stating the genre for one song will not make or break the page so I ditched it. Saying it's built off a piano riff is just fine imo. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • FN47: Article reads it was the first track on Hunky Dory, the first time his audience had heard of him since The Man Who Sold the World, and his previous hard rock and metallic sound was not present; source reads: it was the first song on Hunky Dory, the first his audience had heard of him since The Man Who Sold the World, and where was the doom-racked rocker and his metallic power trio? -- way way too close.
    • Yeah, I think repeating "metallic", which is a distinctive term, is the issue and frankly I don't think we need it -- I suggest leave it at "the hard rock sound" or, if you like, "the heavy metal sound", which I think the source supports (I expect some of the other sources explicitly use the term). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • FN50: No issues.
    • FN65: The word "cryptically" is straight from Pegg; better to leave such adjectives out of the our article than copy them direct.
    • I'm going to stop there for now because I'm finding too many issues with the referencing and this is only based on what I can easily access online -- there might be other instances of close paraphrasing or direct copying up to this point that I haven't found because I don't have the sources at hand. I think you need to go through the article top to toe looking for the sort of things I've noted above. Again, not suggesting complete rewrites, just putting things into your own words more, or eliminating terms you can't easily paraphrase (e.g. losing "cryptically" doesn't hurt the article) or perhaps even extending the odd quote if you feel the point is vital. TBH it might be better to close this review while you do that and then we redo but I don't mind leaving it open since I've taken things at my own pace as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Just so we don't have to drag this on further, I'll do exactly that sometime tomorrow, especially sentences that aren't direct quotes, as I suspect I did not paraphrase that well, especially in the song section. Thanks for the input, I'm still learning :-) – zmbro (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I found one sentence that I have no idea how to reword. Source writes: "The front cover image was a close-up of Bowie living out his Bacall/Garbo fantasies, gazing wistfully into space as he pushes the flowing locks back from his forehead." Article reads: "The final image is a close-up of Bowie looking up into space as he pushes his hair back from his forehead." This was the best I could come up with – how do you think I should handle this? – zmbro (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Hi, particularly given the image is in the article, I'd say you should simplify with something like "The final image is a close-up of Bowie looking past the camera while he pulls back his hair." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Checking other sources used...
      • FN83: I don't know Far Out magazine and its editorial policy, etc, didn't seem evident from checking the website -- can you point me somewhere that confirms it's staffed by professionals and thus counts as a reliable course?
  • An editor over there said that they couldn't find anything that confirms its professional so tonight I'll remove all the info from them. Although I know for a fact a BBC review I cite mentions how "Queen Bitch" was a precursor to Ziggy so I'll be sure to include that. – zmbro (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Broad in its coverage

I think the article probably has too many incidental details that more properly belong in the song articles or could be done away with altogether, for instance:

  • The piano Wakeman played on the album was the same 1898 Bechstein used by Paul McCartney for the Beatles' 1968 song "Hey Jude" and many of Elton John and Harry Nilsson's early records, and would later be used by the English rock band Queen for their 1975 song "Bohemian Rhapsody".
  • I actually think this is a nice fact that could be interesting to readers, as the piano Wakeman used did have some historical importance. Being used on "Hey Jude" would already be enough to signify cultural status but to me the fact that it's used on all of Hunky Dory (the album that is retrospectively described as the turning point in creativity for Bowie) and later "Bohemian Rhapsody" really indicate that it's special. If it was on one song and not the whole album I could understand but since it's the entire album I think it's important. But that's just me.
  • Ronson guided the recording of "Life on Mars?", counting in each take and overdubbed his guitar, strings, Mellotron and Bowie's vocal.
  • Removed
  • Rose would decades later question Bowie's choice to copy his arrangement, saying "I mean couldn't you have done your own treatment of it?"
  • Removed
  • Removed

If you take to peer review or FAC you might also find concerns re. the number and length of quotes. I don't find this a barrier to GA but something to consider. My criteria for quotes are that they should be particularly pithy/insightful, or by someone notable/authoritative, or ideally both -- otherwise best try to paraphrase (but not closely)!

Yeah as I have stated before I figured I went into too much detail with some stuff. I haven't properly written an album article before (mainly just lists and song articles); Bowie is also one of those artists that many biographers (particularly Pegg and O'Leary) that have info for every track he ever recorded so I just didn't know when enough was enough. I do plan to take it to PR after this, especially if you, as an FAC coordinator, think that's what I should do first. :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Neutral/Stable

No concerns here.

Illustrated

Images appear to be appropriately licensed but I think we have too many of them, leading to sandwiching (at least on my pretty standard laptop screen):

  • Strongly suggest losing the one of Trident, and moving the Wakeoman one to that position -- this also means Wakeman "looks into" the article as opposed to "out" of it as now.
  • Done.
  • I understand the attraction of illustrating all three of the tribute/parody songs with their subjects/inspiration but again I think too much. Certainly keep the VU shot as they're the least iconic pictorially, but I think we should lose Dylan and possibly Warhol too.
  • Removed Dylan as I see what you mean. I think I wanna keep Warhol so the first half of the side-two section doesn't feel "empty" (partially why I added the "Changes" audio sample to the top awhile back).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ian Rose I believe I have taken care of everything. Thanks again for reviewing! :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ian Rose I worked on rewording earlier this week and I think it's in a much better spot. Do you think anything else needs to be done? I know there are still a few books that need locations and maybe some more rewording but other than that do you think it's about time we get this over with? (Been almost a month now) I have a ton of time this weekend to work on stuff since it's a holiday here in the US so I'm willing to push through any more edits. Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Zmbro, I should be able to make a further spotcheck this weekend so we can try and wrap up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi, thanks for the changes -- I copyedited a bit, and next will do another round of spotchecks to hopefully finish up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ian Rose Alright so I think everything should be taken care of. We should be good now but if anything else needs to be done just let me know. :-) – zmbro (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tks Zmbro, as a last thing I ran the copyvio detector and the top three results consisted almost entirely of direct quotes you'd used (and cited) so I don't think there's any reason not to pass this as GA now -- nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ian Rose Thanks so much for reviewing! Hope to hear from you again over at FAC in the near future. :-) – zmbro (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunky_Dory/GA1&oldid=966510493"