Lodger (album) is a former
featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the
archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Lodger (album) is within the scope of the WikiProject Regional and national music, an attempt at building a resource on the music of all the peoples and places of the world. Please visit the project's
listing to see the
article's assessment and to help us improve the article as we
push to 1.0.Regional and national musicWikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national musicTemplate:WikiProject Regional and national musicRegional and national music articles
This is in reference to the song "Repetition." That "slur sound" is too high (both in terms of frequency and the string gauge) for it to be a bass guitar. Also, its placement in the mix is hard left, which is not usual for mixing a bass guitar but makes more sense for a rhythm guitar. (Typically, bass guitars and bass/kick drums are placed in the center of a mix, not only because they help "ground" the overall song, but also it helps keep the needle locked onto the playing groove.). And finally, there's already a bass guitar playing a straight-forward bassline (with a slight funk edge too). I call it a "rhythm guitar" because there's already a lead part playing and what that guitar is doing is closer to a rhythm guitar. That is my justification for the edit.
Djproject (
talk)
16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Bobagem
This page is nonsense--the author wrongly believes his/her intuitive impressions to be objective. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.225.147.150 (
talk •
contribs) 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, i.e. that this is meant as a serious comment, perhaps our anonymous contributor should familiarise him/herself with the references cited or the professional review. Happy reading...!
Ian Rose07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Built to Spill
I would very much like to know how one would even consider a Built to Spill reference useful information for someone looking to read about a David Bowie album. Were one to catalogue all references to Bowie and/or his songs, it would be an entire book.
Thus, that reference seems highly irregular and gratuitous. Was the author perhaps a member of that band? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
213.220.237.198 (
talk •
contribs)
05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I have no idea whether the contributor of the Built to Spill tidbit was a band member, it was already on the page when I rewrote/expanded it yonks ago. I decided to leave it because while Bowie references in songs are indeed a dime a dozen, a ref to Lodger, surely one of his most overlooked albums of the 70s (unjustly IMHO but there it is) is a little more unusual. However, I'm not terribly fussed either way and certainly wouldn't get worked up about it... ;-) Cheers,
Ian Rose10:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I added that scrap of useless information when there was nothing on this page except a stub and a track-listing copied from Teenage Wildlife. Now that there is actually useful information about the album on this page, I don't think it's necessary anymore. --
Kramden07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The list of CD releases on this (and, come to think of it, several of the other Bowie album pages) is...well, wrong, so I've fixed it. I'm not feeling particularly artful this evening, though, and I'm sure someone can find a better way of expressing the same information.
Jwlidtnet07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 3 external links on
Lodger (album). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
"For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of the class=hlist is preferred as it offers a benefit to users of screen readers" --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah that. Even though there are only 2 items, using the hlist seems appropriate here since it's used for genres (for consistency) – zmbro(
talk)15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"released on 25 May 1979" → "It was released on 25 May 1979"
Not necessary
It reads a lot better having the next sentence mention the release date after you have introduced the album, especially since it's as far in as his 13th. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Even if the latter wording would read better, I guess you can keep this per the above comment and since it's not really offending anyone. --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Lodger was recorded mostly" → "the album was recorded mostly"
No, since the word 'album' is used eight words prior
That is true, but this is an entirely different sentence from that one and there's already been a comma in it, plus you've used "the album" zero times in this para. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The examples that follow the cards aren't sourced as being techniques inspired by them; they are mentioned in the prior para within the body
I'll be damned you're right it does appear that way. I rewrote two paras in body to match (the cards actually did inspire these methods)
"After the tour," → "After the Isolar II world tour,"
Not necessary, the reader's not going to forget what tour what it was
You have not mentioned the name of the tour since the album's first para; this currently stands as the third consecutive point you've wrote "the tour". --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Lodger is divided into" → "the album is divided into"
Done
"took the album's cover photo," → "took the accompanying cover photo,"
Done
"peaking at No. 4" → "peaking at number four" per
MOS:NUM
"and No. 20 on" → "and number 20 on"
I kept it as "No." and not changed it to "number" as that's what it was when I started expanding. Using this method, it makes more sense to keep it as "No. 4" and "No. 20" for consistency.
Like a GA review, not everything done during expansion is necessarily perfect; shouldn't you make this change to the preferred language? --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That was worded that way by the copy-editor so it's fine as is
"Lodger initially received mixed reviews from music critics, with many calling it the weakest" → "The album received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, being viewed by many as the weakest" because "contemporary" is the better wording on an encyclopaedia
"over the years, and it is" → "over the year and it is" since the article is in British English
Done
"Many have highlighted its use" → "Some have highlighted the use" since that is more accurate
Sure
"with the album's original" → "with Lodger's original"
No need
Remove target on mix
Done
"remixed the album (with Bowie's approval) for inclusion on the 2017 box set" → "remixed the album to the approval of Bowie for inclusion on the 2017 box set,"
We're still talking about '76 at this point; that's the year they met, as both Low and The Idiot were recorded that year
My mistake, but change to 1976 because it otherwise comes across as '77 due to the album being mentioned as released then. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"The first instalment, Low, was recorded" → "The first instalment, Bowie's 11th studio album Low, was recorded"
Done
"beginning in September 1976 and continued through November," → "from September to November of 1976," to be less wordy
Done, much better
"following Bowie and Pop's move" → "following Bowie and Iggy Pop's relocation" since that is not his stage name
"Bowie toured as Pop's" → "Bowie toured as Iggy Pop's"
He is referred to as Pop throughout his
main article, so the same can be applied here
I beg to differ, as that being his main article is an exception since it would be tedious to constantly write the full name though here he's only mentioned a few times. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Just because it's his main article doesn't make it an "exception". Artists like Lady Gaga are referenced throughout WP as just Gaga so Pop would be no exception. – zmbro(
talk)21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I do know what you are getting at here, but that is for articles like their songs/albums where the artists are the main subject. For the "
Drive Slow" article, we agreed for me to identify
Paul Wall by his full stage name since it is not his real name. --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Bowie and Pop returned to" → "the two of them returned to"
Changed to just "the two"
"Pop's next solo album" → "Pop's next studio album" and it is acceptable not writing the full stage name when it was mentioned so recently
I used solo because before this, he was a member of
the Stooges.
Add release year of the album in brackets
Done
"in April and May 1977." → "from April to May of 1977."
Done, but using "of" is excessive
"Visconti and Eno, "Heroes"," → "Visconti and Eno, his 12th studio album "Heroes","
The special aired in 1977, but that song went available until it was released as a single in 1982; it's release year is not that relevant to this album. The point of this para is to show how much Bowie actually did from 76–77.
It is fine in this context due to the release you mentioned, but you should generally add release years in brackets or write them before titles. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"released as an
album" → "which he released as an album
under the same name" but maybe reword slightly, as this adds quite a few bits before the title of the composition
It's fine the way it is
Recording and production
"in September 1978." → "during September 1978." to avoid overusing "in" and because the break wasn't for the entirety of the month anyway
Good idea. Fixed.
"of Bowie's Berlin Trilogy," → "of the Berlin Trilogy,"
Done
"in Switzerland was very different from that in Berlin. The studio" → "in Montreux was very different from that in Berlin; the studio" because you should compare two cities, not a country and a city plus the sentences can be merged since they are small as well as of relevance to each other
I see what you mean. Fixed
Shouldn't [19] be solely at the end of the sentence?
So Buckley talks about Hansa when discussing "Heroes" but doesn't mention Mountain until 20 pages later, hence the split. Would it be smarter to just add the page from ref 19 to ref 20?
"The sessions at Mountain" → "The sessions at Mountain Studios"
That's unnecessary
It has been multiple paras since you stated the full name of the studio; you did for Hansa Tonstudio, so why not this one? --
K. Peake19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"his lyrics, instrumental overdubs and began" → "his lyrics and instrumental overdubs, as well as beginning" since there are only two parts he recorded
Changed to "where he recorded his lyrics and instrumental overdubs, and began"
"was unsuitable. Work was" → "was unsuitable; work was" since the second sentence gives the conclusion to the other one and it is too short
Done
Musical style
[2] does not mention the predecessors as being those rock genres that are mentioned later on in the sentence; see
WP:STICKTOSOURCE
Removed.
The albums ranking for Bowie by COS having the genres as tags does not source them, as the website generally include tags based on the performer's genre(s)
The two CoS ones give the genres in the body. The links were also wrong but these have been updated
"the
electronic and
ambient styles and" → "the
ambient style and" since the source does not mention electronic
Added one that uses both ambient and electronic
[2] should be solely at the end of the sentence
Fixed
"considers Lodger to be" → "considered Lodger to be" since the quote is sourced from a website
Done
"Belew similarly describes" parts like this are confusing to me; for quotes by musicians from books, you should use only one tense for consistency and I only noted them because you have been consistent for biographers
Done
"considered it a forerunner" → "considered the album a forerunner"
Done
"writes that Lodger" → "wrote that Lodger"
Done
"found Lodger to be" → "found the album to be" to avoid writing the title too much
I agree, but since the sentence is talking about the entire trilogy, it makes sense to mention the title here
Bowie wrote "All the Young Dudes" for another band, Mott the Hoople, who released it in 1972. He recorded his own (inferior) version that wasn't released until the 90s so would "earlier hit" apply here? Feels like it doesn't
"travel (primarily side one) and critiques of Western civilisation (primarily side two)." → "travel and critiques of Western civilisation primarily on sides one and two, respectively." to avoid repetitive wording with the lead
Done
"Because of this, Mastropolo views" → "Because of this, Mastropolo viewed"
"released Lodger 25 May 1979," → "released Lodger on 25 May 1979,"
Done, wonder how that happened
"with the catalogue number" → "with catalogue number"
No that doesn't make sense
You have used "the catalogue number" on two occasions and "catalogue number" on three; why don't you just use one of them for consistency? --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
""Boys Keep Swinging" (Bowie" → ""Boys Keep Swinging"; Bowie" since this piece of grammar being used instead of brackets is fine when the sentence is this short
"for many years calling it" → "for many years, calling it"
Done
"had that the record" → "had that the album"
Record is fine; plus it varies it up
"during the sessions for" → "during the sessions for the former's 24th studio album"
Done
"presented the new mixes to Bowie, who approved of them" → "presented the new mix to Bowie, who approved of it"
When Visconti presented what he was doing to Bowie, he had only completed a few of the new mixes (maybe 3-4 of the tracks). Bowie approved of this, but Visconti didn't finish all of them til after Bowie died. So the wording as is is more appropriate
"included it in the 2017 box set" → "included it on" plus remove the wikilink
Done
"writes that the new mix" → "wrote that the new mix"
Done
"and noted that the" → "and noting that the"
Done
"praised the remix, believing it has" → "praised the remix, believing it"
Done
"the record and" → "the record and is"
Done
"was the highlight of" → "is the highlight of"
Done
Track listing
Good
Reissues
"(in the USA)" → "(in the US)
I realized that the first few reissues had no refs supporting them so that's been fixed. I also rewrote these sentence and felt this was unnecessary
Make sure all of these that can be are archived by using the tool
I've archived every one possible
Italicise the album title(s) on refs 2, 22, 38, 58, 61, 79, 95, 100, 118, 122 and 124, plus box set title on ref 88
The ones that use put the title in single apostrophes should be left alone as that's what the title is
Fix
MOS:QWQ issues with ref 81 and italicise the album title
Not sure what you're referring to here
Here is the
old revision so you can see which ref I mean; speech marks should not be added to titles as I believe you're aware. There are a couple more issues that violate this MOS; I
fixed those ones for you. --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; very glad I wrapped this review up over the course of one day as I'm sure you are too! --
K. Peake19:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Zmbro Thank you for responding at such a good rate; I have left comments above anywhere they needed to still be made and hopefully this will become a GA today! --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Zmbro It is not his real name; you are advised on Wiki to not write the last name in cases like these unless the artist is the main subject and look throughout then you'll see. --
K. Peake17:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Zmbro Good thing we have come to a comprise on this subject, after having a good amount of time disagreeing. ✓Pass now you've implemented the name references properly! --
K. Peake17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Lodger (album) is a former
featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the
archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Lodger (album) is within the scope of the WikiProject Regional and national music, an attempt at building a resource on the music of all the peoples and places of the world. Please visit the project's
listing to see the
article's assessment and to help us improve the article as we
push to 1.0.Regional and national musicWikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national musicTemplate:WikiProject Regional and national musicRegional and national music articles
This is in reference to the song "Repetition." That "slur sound" is too high (both in terms of frequency and the string gauge) for it to be a bass guitar. Also, its placement in the mix is hard left, which is not usual for mixing a bass guitar but makes more sense for a rhythm guitar. (Typically, bass guitars and bass/kick drums are placed in the center of a mix, not only because they help "ground" the overall song, but also it helps keep the needle locked onto the playing groove.). And finally, there's already a bass guitar playing a straight-forward bassline (with a slight funk edge too). I call it a "rhythm guitar" because there's already a lead part playing and what that guitar is doing is closer to a rhythm guitar. That is my justification for the edit.
Djproject (
talk)
16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Bobagem
This page is nonsense--the author wrongly believes his/her intuitive impressions to be objective. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.225.147.150 (
talk •
contribs) 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, i.e. that this is meant as a serious comment, perhaps our anonymous contributor should familiarise him/herself with the references cited or the professional review. Happy reading...!
Ian Rose07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Built to Spill
I would very much like to know how one would even consider a Built to Spill reference useful information for someone looking to read about a David Bowie album. Were one to catalogue all references to Bowie and/or his songs, it would be an entire book.
Thus, that reference seems highly irregular and gratuitous. Was the author perhaps a member of that band? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
213.220.237.198 (
talk •
contribs)
05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I have no idea whether the contributor of the Built to Spill tidbit was a band member, it was already on the page when I rewrote/expanded it yonks ago. I decided to leave it because while Bowie references in songs are indeed a dime a dozen, a ref to Lodger, surely one of his most overlooked albums of the 70s (unjustly IMHO but there it is) is a little more unusual. However, I'm not terribly fussed either way and certainly wouldn't get worked up about it... ;-) Cheers,
Ian Rose10:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I added that scrap of useless information when there was nothing on this page except a stub and a track-listing copied from Teenage Wildlife. Now that there is actually useful information about the album on this page, I don't think it's necessary anymore. --
Kramden07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The list of CD releases on this (and, come to think of it, several of the other Bowie album pages) is...well, wrong, so I've fixed it. I'm not feeling particularly artful this evening, though, and I'm sure someone can find a better way of expressing the same information.
Jwlidtnet07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 3 external links on
Lodger (album). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
"For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of the class=hlist is preferred as it offers a benefit to users of screen readers" --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah that. Even though there are only 2 items, using the hlist seems appropriate here since it's used for genres (for consistency) – zmbro(
talk)15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"released on 25 May 1979" → "It was released on 25 May 1979"
Not necessary
It reads a lot better having the next sentence mention the release date after you have introduced the album, especially since it's as far in as his 13th. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Even if the latter wording would read better, I guess you can keep this per the above comment and since it's not really offending anyone. --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Lodger was recorded mostly" → "the album was recorded mostly"
No, since the word 'album' is used eight words prior
That is true, but this is an entirely different sentence from that one and there's already been a comma in it, plus you've used "the album" zero times in this para. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The examples that follow the cards aren't sourced as being techniques inspired by them; they are mentioned in the prior para within the body
I'll be damned you're right it does appear that way. I rewrote two paras in body to match (the cards actually did inspire these methods)
"After the tour," → "After the Isolar II world tour,"
Not necessary, the reader's not going to forget what tour what it was
You have not mentioned the name of the tour since the album's first para; this currently stands as the third consecutive point you've wrote "the tour". --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Lodger is divided into" → "the album is divided into"
Done
"took the album's cover photo," → "took the accompanying cover photo,"
Done
"peaking at No. 4" → "peaking at number four" per
MOS:NUM
"and No. 20 on" → "and number 20 on"
I kept it as "No." and not changed it to "number" as that's what it was when I started expanding. Using this method, it makes more sense to keep it as "No. 4" and "No. 20" for consistency.
Like a GA review, not everything done during expansion is necessarily perfect; shouldn't you make this change to the preferred language? --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That was worded that way by the copy-editor so it's fine as is
"Lodger initially received mixed reviews from music critics, with many calling it the weakest" → "The album received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, being viewed by many as the weakest" because "contemporary" is the better wording on an encyclopaedia
"over the years, and it is" → "over the year and it is" since the article is in British English
Done
"Many have highlighted its use" → "Some have highlighted the use" since that is more accurate
Sure
"with the album's original" → "with Lodger's original"
No need
Remove target on mix
Done
"remixed the album (with Bowie's approval) for inclusion on the 2017 box set" → "remixed the album to the approval of Bowie for inclusion on the 2017 box set,"
We're still talking about '76 at this point; that's the year they met, as both Low and The Idiot were recorded that year
My mistake, but change to 1976 because it otherwise comes across as '77 due to the album being mentioned as released then. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"The first instalment, Low, was recorded" → "The first instalment, Bowie's 11th studio album Low, was recorded"
Done
"beginning in September 1976 and continued through November," → "from September to November of 1976," to be less wordy
Done, much better
"following Bowie and Pop's move" → "following Bowie and Iggy Pop's relocation" since that is not his stage name
"Bowie toured as Pop's" → "Bowie toured as Iggy Pop's"
He is referred to as Pop throughout his
main article, so the same can be applied here
I beg to differ, as that being his main article is an exception since it would be tedious to constantly write the full name though here he's only mentioned a few times. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Just because it's his main article doesn't make it an "exception". Artists like Lady Gaga are referenced throughout WP as just Gaga so Pop would be no exception. – zmbro(
talk)21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I do know what you are getting at here, but that is for articles like their songs/albums where the artists are the main subject. For the "
Drive Slow" article, we agreed for me to identify
Paul Wall by his full stage name since it is not his real name. --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"Bowie and Pop returned to" → "the two of them returned to"
Changed to just "the two"
"Pop's next solo album" → "Pop's next studio album" and it is acceptable not writing the full stage name when it was mentioned so recently
I used solo because before this, he was a member of
the Stooges.
Add release year of the album in brackets
Done
"in April and May 1977." → "from April to May of 1977."
Done, but using "of" is excessive
"Visconti and Eno, "Heroes"," → "Visconti and Eno, his 12th studio album "Heroes","
The special aired in 1977, but that song went available until it was released as a single in 1982; it's release year is not that relevant to this album. The point of this para is to show how much Bowie actually did from 76–77.
It is fine in this context due to the release you mentioned, but you should generally add release years in brackets or write them before titles. --
K. Peake19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"released as an
album" → "which he released as an album
under the same name" but maybe reword slightly, as this adds quite a few bits before the title of the composition
It's fine the way it is
Recording and production
"in September 1978." → "during September 1978." to avoid overusing "in" and because the break wasn't for the entirety of the month anyway
Good idea. Fixed.
"of Bowie's Berlin Trilogy," → "of the Berlin Trilogy,"
Done
"in Switzerland was very different from that in Berlin. The studio" → "in Montreux was very different from that in Berlin; the studio" because you should compare two cities, not a country and a city plus the sentences can be merged since they are small as well as of relevance to each other
I see what you mean. Fixed
Shouldn't [19] be solely at the end of the sentence?
So Buckley talks about Hansa when discussing "Heroes" but doesn't mention Mountain until 20 pages later, hence the split. Would it be smarter to just add the page from ref 19 to ref 20?
"The sessions at Mountain" → "The sessions at Mountain Studios"
That's unnecessary
It has been multiple paras since you stated the full name of the studio; you did for Hansa Tonstudio, so why not this one? --
K. Peake19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
"his lyrics, instrumental overdubs and began" → "his lyrics and instrumental overdubs, as well as beginning" since there are only two parts he recorded
Changed to "where he recorded his lyrics and instrumental overdubs, and began"
"was unsuitable. Work was" → "was unsuitable; work was" since the second sentence gives the conclusion to the other one and it is too short
Done
Musical style
[2] does not mention the predecessors as being those rock genres that are mentioned later on in the sentence; see
WP:STICKTOSOURCE
Removed.
The albums ranking for Bowie by COS having the genres as tags does not source them, as the website generally include tags based on the performer's genre(s)
The two CoS ones give the genres in the body. The links were also wrong but these have been updated
"the
electronic and
ambient styles and" → "the
ambient style and" since the source does not mention electronic
Added one that uses both ambient and electronic
[2] should be solely at the end of the sentence
Fixed
"considers Lodger to be" → "considered Lodger to be" since the quote is sourced from a website
Done
"Belew similarly describes" parts like this are confusing to me; for quotes by musicians from books, you should use only one tense for consistency and I only noted them because you have been consistent for biographers
Done
"considered it a forerunner" → "considered the album a forerunner"
Done
"writes that Lodger" → "wrote that Lodger"
Done
"found Lodger to be" → "found the album to be" to avoid writing the title too much
I agree, but since the sentence is talking about the entire trilogy, it makes sense to mention the title here
Bowie wrote "All the Young Dudes" for another band, Mott the Hoople, who released it in 1972. He recorded his own (inferior) version that wasn't released until the 90s so would "earlier hit" apply here? Feels like it doesn't
"travel (primarily side one) and critiques of Western civilisation (primarily side two)." → "travel and critiques of Western civilisation primarily on sides one and two, respectively." to avoid repetitive wording with the lead
Done
"Because of this, Mastropolo views" → "Because of this, Mastropolo viewed"
"released Lodger 25 May 1979," → "released Lodger on 25 May 1979,"
Done, wonder how that happened
"with the catalogue number" → "with catalogue number"
No that doesn't make sense
You have used "the catalogue number" on two occasions and "catalogue number" on three; why don't you just use one of them for consistency? --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
""Boys Keep Swinging" (Bowie" → ""Boys Keep Swinging"; Bowie" since this piece of grammar being used instead of brackets is fine when the sentence is this short
"for many years calling it" → "for many years, calling it"
Done
"had that the record" → "had that the album"
Record is fine; plus it varies it up
"during the sessions for" → "during the sessions for the former's 24th studio album"
Done
"presented the new mixes to Bowie, who approved of them" → "presented the new mix to Bowie, who approved of it"
When Visconti presented what he was doing to Bowie, he had only completed a few of the new mixes (maybe 3-4 of the tracks). Bowie approved of this, but Visconti didn't finish all of them til after Bowie died. So the wording as is is more appropriate
"included it in the 2017 box set" → "included it on" plus remove the wikilink
Done
"writes that the new mix" → "wrote that the new mix"
Done
"and noted that the" → "and noting that the"
Done
"praised the remix, believing it has" → "praised the remix, believing it"
Done
"the record and" → "the record and is"
Done
"was the highlight of" → "is the highlight of"
Done
Track listing
Good
Reissues
"(in the USA)" → "(in the US)
I realized that the first few reissues had no refs supporting them so that's been fixed. I also rewrote these sentence and felt this was unnecessary
Make sure all of these that can be are archived by using the tool
I've archived every one possible
Italicise the album title(s) on refs 2, 22, 38, 58, 61, 79, 95, 100, 118, 122 and 124, plus box set title on ref 88
The ones that use put the title in single apostrophes should be left alone as that's what the title is
Fix
MOS:QWQ issues with ref 81 and italicise the album title
Not sure what you're referring to here
Here is the
old revision so you can see which ref I mean; speech marks should not be added to titles as I believe you're aware. There are a couple more issues that violate this MOS; I
fixed those ones for you. --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; very glad I wrapped this review up over the course of one day as I'm sure you are too! --
K. Peake19:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Zmbro Thank you for responding at such a good rate; I have left comments above anywhere they needed to still be made and hopefully this will become a GA today! --
K. Peake08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Zmbro It is not his real name; you are advised on Wiki to not write the last name in cases like these unless the artist is the main subject and look throughout then you'll see. --
K. Peake17:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Zmbro Good thing we have come to a comprise on this subject, after having a good amount of time disagreeing. ✓Pass now you've implemented the name references properly! --
K. Peake17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply