Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Next Day/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [1].

The Next Day[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... David Bowie's 25th and penultimate studio album The Next Day. After its unsuccessful first nomination, I opened a pretty [PR] and extensive prose copyedits to where I now believe its finally ready for the star. Hopefully second time's the charm. Re-pinging previous FAC and PR contributors Ceoil SchroCat Ian Rose ChrisTheDude Aoba47 David Fuchs – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Have been following closely - much improved and happy to see it back. My demands to follow in a few days grumble, grumble. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Would go with Brit Eng and so should be "by the English musician David Bowie"
  • ...was recorded in New York City at the Magic Shop and Human Worldwide Studios - too much detail for the lead
  • old and new is hackneyed phrasing, and would use the term session musicians here...some of whom he had worked with in the past
  • I changed received critical acclaim and was regarded - to "well received by critics as Bowie's best work in decades".
  • More later Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, with more quibbles

"McNulty applied studio processing on the mixing board so it would "sound like a record on playback"" - not sure what this means. Link mixing board.
" themes of tyranny and violence" - They were heavily indicating fascism. Suggest "Evoking" rathet that "themes", which is a very vague jurnalistic term way too rampant on wiki). Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it reads very well, the extraneous stuff has been cut. I was happy with quality of sources at last FAC, it's a very interesting, gripping article, Support. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil Thank you Ceoil. I'm happy we had a more positive and less troublesome collaboration after This Year's Model. Looking forward to more stuff in the future, and if you ever need help with any of your articles I'd be more than happy to assist :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's much stronger than on its first visit to FAC and reads nicely now. Great to see the number of quotes reduced from first time round - and it reads much more smoothly because of it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I supported during the first FAC and I support the FAC again for promotion this time. I read through the article a few more times since it was posted, and I could not find anything further to comment on here. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • Source 6 says it was published on 12 Jan 2013 09.00 GMT, not 11 Jan.
  • Source 8, 9, 11, 64, 65 need to be marked as dead as the main links aren't working.
  • Italicize titles of albums/works per MOS:CONFORMTITLE (e.g. The Next Day in ref. 9 title).
  • The Independent should be linked in ref. 28, not ref. 34.
  • Rock's Backpages can be linked in ref. 36.
  • NY Times should be linked in ref. 68, not 96
  • Watch out for WP:QWQ in ref. 81 title.
  • Ref. 88 should have Grammy Awards as publisher, not grammy.com in website.
  • I would say "David Bowie The Next Day Review" is the actual title of ref. 98. What you have is more of a subtitle.
  • PopMatters can be linked in ref. 114 (and in the body).
  • Got all of the above taken care of. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks: 6 (it says Bowie avoided PR campaign but there's no mention that Sony is Columbia Records' PR firm), 9 (it doesn't say had worked with Bowie on records from Let's Dance (1983) to Heathen.), 21 in part, 97b, 116, 120. FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey FrB.TG I've finally got around to these. I so far believe I've fixed all of them but I was wondering if you could help clarify "21 in part". Do you mean the words don't match the source, they match the source too well, or what exactly? Just so I have a better idea of what to look for. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I have no further issues. I did a couple of other spot-checks for the book sources and found no irregularities. FrB.TG (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, back again after the last FAC and PR to review and copyedit (fairly lightly although I did find some basic grammatical errors as well as repetition in places). Certainly an improvement in terms of the level of detail (clearly reduced) although I'm still not entirely happy with some of the expression, particularly in the song descriptions -- it's never easy to produce this stuff in an encyclopedic fashion rather than in pseudo-rock-journalese and still remain engaging. I don't think I can quite support on prose but neither will I oppose -- if I get a chance to revisit and can come up with any further improvements I will. Stout effort in any case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re song descriptions, and have made a start on this. The content is fine but needs to be more encyclopedic in areas. Ceoil (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have made some wordings. Ceoil (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, I think it's improved. Not going to go through again and explicitly support but certainly not unhappy to see it promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The lead says that he had a heart attack in 2004, but the lead doesn't mention this at all and only refers to surgery for a blocked artery?
  • "McNulty set-up workstations" => "McNulty set up workstations"
  • "Bowie shares the songwriting credit with Jerry Lordan; the melody of the "ya ya yay a" line is taken directly from the Shadows' 1960 instrumental "Apache"" - I don't think it's clear here that Lordan getting the credit is because he wrote "Apache". Also, note that "Apache" was originally by Burt Weedon, so is it really accurate to call it "The Shadows' instrumental".....?
  • "Scott Walker,[46][47] who Bowie noted as an influence" => "Scott Walker,[46][47] whom Bowie noted as an influence"
  • "An accompanying video, directed by Bowie himself and costing $12.99 - what does this mean? The entire budget for the music video was $12.99?
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Sorry I had a very busy weekend. Made adjustments based on your comments. Thanks for commenting. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

File:David Bowie (135687113).jpeg - claims Creative Commons 3.0, but not seeing anywhere on the 500px source page where a release under that license is indicated?
Licensing for the other images looks fine. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Hmm. It says CC 3.0 under the detail page here but does that not apply? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine then. Passing the image review. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 29 March 2023 (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/The_Next_Day/archive2&oldid=1149235131"