Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hunky Dory/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [1].

Hunky Dory edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! This article is about David Bowie's fourth studio album Hunky Dory. For a while now I've become greatly interested in Bowie and have felt that his lasting impact on popular culture deserves more well-written articles. So, I have brought this one from whatever this was to 2 different copyedits (one successful) to GA and now to FAC. It also went through a very helpful PR as well. I mainly based my expansions on other album FAs such as Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) and Cut the Crap. I'm looking forward to anyone's comments and concerns and hope I can earn my first FA. – zmbro (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder by Ian edit

I reviewed, copyedited and eventually passed this at GAN, knowing its ultimate destination was FAC; I'd be interested to see other perspectives before I recuse coord duties and weigh in here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! – zmbro (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • Is there a reason the "Life on Mars" single release date is only put in the infobox, and not in the article's prose?
  • Not sure. Fixed
  • For this part, "After Bowie completed his third studio album", I would use David Bowie's full name and link him since this is the first mention in the article.
  • Fixed
  • I believe this is taken care of but please let me know if it's not.
  • Is there a reason why this sentence, "Hunky Dory was released on 17 December 1971 by RCA.", has so many citations? It seems like Wikipedia:Citation overkill.
  • The reason I put so many citations there was that biographers Pegg and Cann both stated the release date as different than 17 December. But then once I found more sources stating it was in fact 17 December, I wanted to make sure that was known even though it seems like I overdid it. Strangely enough, Cann listed the release date as two different things in the same book so that just added to the confusion.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the reviewer's name is sometimes included in the prose (i.e. Michael Gallucci of Ultimate Classic Rock) and other instances where only the publication name is used (Melody Maker called it). I would recommend being consistent with one way or the other.
  • The reason for this is I mainly found the Melody Maker inside other sources, such as Pegg, where he just stated "Melody Maker called it". I'll see if I can find the original author. – zmbro (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. If you cannot locate the original author, then the original wording should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good to me. I hope that my comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great work with the article! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ edit

I don't listen to David Bowie that much but I have mad respect for him and really would like to see his articles promoted to GA or FA status. You really did him justice with this article -- an immaculately written and thorougly researched one. I may have missed a few issues while reviewing the article, but I'm sure they are all neglectable ones should they be addressed. Great work with the article, and best of luck with the FAC! HĐ (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by The Ultimate Boss edit

I am a huge David Bowie fan! The article looks amazing and is definitely ready for FA! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07 edit

I reviewed this during PR, where I genuinely couldn't find much to complain about prose-wise. It's a brilliantly written article. One thing I neglected to mention then was that Charts sections tend to include the sortable scope=row formatting, but that's not enough to hold up promotion. If you don't know what that is, send me a note and I could do it for you, if you'd like. Happy to support this. Good luck with the nomination Zmbro. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07 Thanks so much for your kind comments! Fixed the tables :-) – zmbro (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • Though this already has a lot of supports, I think it could benefit from more in-depth reviews. At first glance, there are a lot of duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Damn you were right. Thanks for that script! I've removed all the ones it highlighted. – zmbro (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should have double-checked with the tool before providing my support. I did post a comment about the duplinks in my review, but I admittedly did not do the best job with follow-up about it so apologies for that and I take responsibility for it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 They should all be fixed now. I'll also be sure to use the tool in the future. – zmbro (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, I think this comes up in every other FAC. But there are still some duplinks left, for example Elton John and Velvet Underground, among others. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there were. Not sure how I missed those the first time around. Should be fixed now. – zmbro (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems Lou Reed, Marc Bolan, and Mercury Records are duplinked. Yeah, it's tricky! FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Ok they should all be fixed now! xP Thanks for the comments! Left a few below. – zmbro (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After David Bowie completed his third studio album" I think you can present him here at first mention in the article body as you do in the intro, "English singer-songwriter".
  • Done
  • "as the band did not learn the songs" Had not learned?
  • Done
  • "According to Cann, on the same day, Defries sent a letter to actor and jazz pianist Dudley Moore asking him to play piano during a session." Why when they had Wakeman?
  • I have no idea I thought the same when I was writing it. Defries was a strange individual from what I've read. He was all over the place in terms of being both good and bad for Bowie. Cann doesn't give a reason as to why he did this, I guess he thought Wakeman wasn't good enough.
  • "same diatonic major progression" Some terms to link here?
  • Done
  • "whose identity commentators have debated" Any notable contenders to list?
  • Pegg says it but doesn't specify, I assume he means in general. Should I just mention him?
Not sure if we mean the same thing, but I was talking about what girls do they think it referred to? FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that makes more sense my bad. Some biographers have suggested "the girl with the mousy hair" to be Hermione Farthingale, who was a girlfriend of Bowie's in the 60s and an influence on him during that decade as well; there's even a song dedicated to her on Space Oddity. Pegg writes that there's no real evidence to back this up and Hermione herself as apparently debunked any theories as to her being the girl referenced. So if there was anyone to put it would be her. – zmbro (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps interesting enough for a footnote? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. – zmbro (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few days after his son Duncan Zowie Haywood Jones was born" Link him?
  • Done, I believe that was something that was highlighted
  • " The piano-driven arrangement differs to Bowie's live performances of the song" Differs from?
  • Done
  • "He also uses the word "chameleon" in the song" I wonder if chameleon should instead be linked at first mention, " being dubbed the "chameleon of rock""?
  • Yeah you're right, done
  • You are a bit inconsistent in whether you give nationalities for people mentioned or not.
  • Yeah I notice that now. What would you recommend?
Personally I would give nationalities for all if it somehow aided the story, otherwise for none. I think in this case it could be warranted, since there is the "Brit going to the US" angle. So we can see who is who. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk Yeah I was thinking that too since this album does have American influences. My biggest concern is I feel like mentioning nationalities all over the place would be overkill, especially in the background section when mentioning his managers and band members, although I think the first mention of Marc Bolan would be ok. I'll do some fidgeting. – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's tricky too. Maybe mention nationalities for important figures, or where their nationality has some sort of relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Alright so I've done some condensing on nationalities as well as descriptions (like singer, musician, etc.), especially when it doesn't really have particular relevance in the context of the whole article. I realized I hadn't been consistent between some paragraphs and sentences when describing nationalities and whatnot. Does it seem better now? – zmbro (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contained multiple Dietrich prints" You haven't linked or spelled out her name outside the intro.
  • Have no idea how I missed that, fixed
  • "gave the album an extremely positive review" Seems hyperbolic.
  • Done
  • You only give writer's names for retrospective reviews, not contemporary reviews, any reason why?
  • Yeah Aoba mentioned this. I received most of these reviews from the biographers, however most of them did not give an author. I was able to find the author for the original NME and Village Voice reviews but wasn't able to for Melody Maker (there were only a few prominent critics for the publication at the time but I didn't want to make assumptions) nor Billboard (I was able to do some hard digging and found the original issue with the album review in it but it also didn't give an author). I tried finding The New York Times one but again had no luck. Rock magazine doesn't even have its own WP page (it's certainly not this) so I knew there would be no luck there. I also gave authors because there were multiple reviews from RS and Pitchfork and wanted to differentiate. What do you think should be done about this?
I guess you can only add the names when they can be found. It just looked like they had been systematically left out for the newer reviews. Alternatively, you could leave out all reviewer names, but that's probably not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think I'm good with how it is? I can change it if need be. – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be alright. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its [sic]" What's the error?
  • Now that I read it back I have no idea. Fixed.
  • Support - everything looks good to me now, but my issues weren't that serious to begin with, it's a very well-prepared article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the image and source review requests section. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "was inspired by a Marlene Dietrich photo book that Bowie took to the photoshoot" - the article text says only that Bowie brought the book and gives other sources of inspiration for the cover
  • Very good point. I believe that sentence was there before I ever started the expansion and I just never thought to update it. Added influence of Bacall and Garbo to the sentence.
  • FN45 is a bit of an odd source for what it's supporting - suggest replacing
  • I know Buckley supports it as well as Business Insider so I think that should be sufficient enough
  • FN50: don't need work included in title parameter, and author is missing
  • Fixed
  • Similarly FN86 doesn't need work in title parameter
  • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if they are included they should be more specific than "UK"
  • Thought I took care of all of those. Fixed.
  • You've got them throughout Sources, but you've also got some books in References - formatting should match. (Also suggest "New York City" rather than "New York, New York", to match London). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to the liner notes refs (i.e. UK: RCA, etc.), those actually only have countries and not cities as those indicate the countries they were released in. – zmbro (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm referring to the books, eg The New Rolling Stone Album Guide. The liner notes are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn123 is missing page. Ditto FN129
  • 1. For NME I couldn't find a page number but I found the original review here on Rock's Backpages so notated that. I noticed a few refs on Cut the Crap (another FA) used this method so I'm hoping that will suffice.
  • 2. Didn't find this one on Rock's Backpages so I had to do a deep dive. Should be good now.
  • FN142: why not cite the original sources directly?
  • I can't seem to find a direct source for FNAC nor the 2 Q lists. I found the Q lists here and here but those were compiled by other cites and not directly from the publications themselves. I'm not sure what to do as I'm certain a site like 909originals and listchallenges wouldn't be considered reliable.
  • FN148: why does this particular ranking warrant inclusion?
  • That one was also noted on Aftermath. I basically modeled the rankings section on that article's same section. I thought some choices used there were odd, including this one, but thought that if it was noted and became an FA I thought I'd do the same. If you don't think it's that important I can remove it.
  • Removed.
  • FN152 and similar: don't need website name in title, should be listed separately as in FN159
  • Those are actually using the template albumchart so I'm not exactly sure how to fix those.
  • Is there a reason the template is set up this way? Doesn't seem to make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no clue. When I click on the urls the tab title in my browser actually lists the website name first, then artist, then album so it might just list what that title is. – zmbro (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
Nikkimaria Mostly done with comments above. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Added more replies above. – zmbro (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Following up on this. – zmbro (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book locations issue from above is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria My apologies must have not seen or forgot about the above post. I know for a fact all book refs should be fixed now. – zmbro (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Re-pinging. – zmbro (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only pending issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Sorry didn't know if anything else needed to be done. Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by indopug edit

  • While the description of Bowie as singer-songwriter is technically correct, the term usually implies a sort of Woody Guthrie figure, strumming away at his acoustic guitar. I feel "rock musician" would be better; he was after all performing rock music while backed by a rock band.
  • I personally think he qualifies as a "singer-songwriter", in the same way people like Lou Reed, Paul McCartney and Paul Simon are (and for the same reason people like Ringo Starr aren't). But, I'm not gonna fuss about it so changed to just "musician".
  • This is a defining glam-rock album, I'd replace the somewhat vague "pop rock" (a genre that even describes Avril Lavigne lol) with it.
  • I wouldn't consider this album as a "defining glam-rock album", especially compared to Ziggy and Aladdin. Hunky does have some bits of glam in it, notably "Queen Bitch" and you could argue "Oh! You Pretty Things" but those are just two instances. You also can't really make the comparison to Lavigne because pop rock in the 70s was much different than it was in the 2000s. Pop rock is primarily in the infobox because it's sourced. For some reason, biographers like Pegg don't give a definite genre of the album and the only source I could find that mentions glam as part of the while album is this one: "a mix of pop, glam, art and folk". That's mainly why glam rock is not in the infobox.
  • 'It was supported by the singles "Changes" in 1972 and "Life on Mars?" in 1973.' - can an album really be "supported" by a single 19 months after its release? I think "Life on Mars"'s single release was independent of the album.
  • Pegg writes: "'Life On Mars?' was belatedly released as a single at the height of Ziggymania in June 1973." I basically think RCA saw the success Bowie had become following Ziggy after just released it as a single to capitalize. I mean it was released after Aladdin, which is crazy to me. I think the same can be said for "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide", a Ziggy track that was released as a single in '74, two years later. Should I change it to something like: "It was supported by the single "Changes" in 1972; "Life on Mars?" was later released as a single in 1973."?
  • 'Among these were "Moonage Daydream"...' - this sentence seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.
  • You're totally right, plus I added them to the Ziggy article awhile ago. Removed it here.
  • "This was partly due to challenges that his new manager Tony Defries, whom Bowie hired after firing his old manager Kenneth Pitt and leaving music publisher Essex Music, faced" - having "faced" so far away from the rest of the clause seems awkward.
  • I agree. Fixed.
  • "After hearing Bowie's new single . . . three or four years." - these 3 sentences are looong, averaging 46 words each!
  • Yeah you're right :\ I guess I could trim the bit about Wonder, as that's not really that relevant in the context of the whole article. What do you recommend?
  • Some confusion regarding Tony Visconti - "Visconti was replaced as producer by Ken Scott". But there's no mention of Visconti being appointed producer at all? In fact, the previous section had him gone way in August 1970.
  • Visconti was the producer of The Man Who Sold the World. I believe one of the biographers worded it that way (that he was replaced). However, now that you mention it I guess he wouldn't be replaced in this instance if he left voluntarily. I think replaced was used because Visconti had already worked with Bowie for Space Oddity and Man so it made sense when I was writing it. What would you recommend here?

I'm finding way too many occurrences of stilted prose and confused wording in just the first two or three sections to say this article is ready for FA status right now. I'll try to give a detailed review in the coming days.—indopug (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be that big of an issue. It's my first album article so I'm still learning. Ready to do whatever it takes :-) – zmbro (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say, I'm going to start this later today. Mods please dont' close this yet!—indopug (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed review edit
General comments
  • Remember that the subject of this article is the album Hunky Dory. Many times there is a tendency to go on about things that are not directly related to this album. (For example: the Stevie Wonder stuff)
  • This excess detail often gets in the way of a coherent narrative, who is often best told completely chronologically.
  • Words like "Bowie" and "album" are used hundreds of times in the article; try to make sure they don't repeat several times in a single sentence or in adjacent sentences.
Background
  • You should add a couple of sentences on TMWSTW's style, impact (on Bowie) and reception. Specifically, it's not very clear how popular and acclaimed Bowie is in mid-1970.
  • Done. Although I still think I need to make further edits for flow. – zmbro (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph seems very scattershot and honestly I'm struggling to see the narrative here that is relevant to the story of the making of Hunky Dory.
  • What were the challenges Defries faced?
  • One was the Stevie Wonder thing... xP
  • "whom Bowie hired after firing his old manager Kenneth Pitt and leaving music publisher Essex Music" doesn't add anything, IMO.
  • Yeah you're right. Removed.
  • There's a lot of stuff about Visconti (and its not clear he produced MWSTW), Ronson and Woodmansey that, again, seems to have nothing to do with the making of the new album. Keep the focus on Bowie.
  • I mainly added these to give readers an idea of where they (specifically Ronson and Woodmansey) were at when Bowie contacted them later on, especially in regards to the first few sentences of writing and recording. – zmbro (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made it clear that Visconti produced Man and removed the sentence about what the three of them did after they left. – zmbro (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is much better.
  • Why is Mercury sending him to the US? Is it his US label?
  • This is fixed.
  • Not clear what Haddon is. If it is Haddon Hall, it's not clear Bowie was there?
  • It is Haddon Hall. It's introduced in the first paragraph. After the radio tour he returned there and began writing songs.
  • You should remove that box quote and incorporate what's he said into the narrative. Clearly America played a central role in how he wrote. You've only credited it for writing songs to 3 icons.
  • "As a result..." - as a result of what? Composing on piano in a spacious studio doesn't mean one suddenly becomes prolific.
  • Removed the sentence before it about the bedroom thing; think it's a bit of excess detail. Since this alters the next sentence, I changed "as a result" to "in total". Does that work? – zmbro (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing and recording
  • You need to reintroduce Arnold Corns since that sentence was removed.
  • Fixed.
  • "leaving Mercury" - this is abrupt. I see that it's later dealt with extensively in Release; but why not write the whole article completely chronologically? Move para 1 of Release to the end of Background (and rewrite accordingly).
  • Done.
  • "Arnold Corns guitarist Mark Pritchett, Space Oddity drummer Terry Cox, and his former Turquoise colleague Tony Hill" - these guys make no futher appearances in the article. Is it necessary to mention them at all?
  • Removed.
  • "Kemp would instead join Steeleye Span" - not relevant.
  • Removed.
  • "which included album track "Andy Warhol". - just want to note that in the narrative, the album hasn't been made yet, so there can't be an "album track". Just "song" is enough here.
  • Very good point.
  • Woah the second paragraph drops a lot of names and goes into a LOT of detail about a single performance. I'm not sure of the relevance of any of it, except the last sentence. So why not start with that? "Bowie along with his new backing trio, soon to be named TSFM, played for the first time on 3 June on BBC DJ John Peel's show. The set included debut performances of several songs Bowie had recently written such as..."
  • This way a case of I didn't know when enough was enough. Should be better now.
  • Third para goes way too deep into Scott's resume. Also don't think Visconti needs to be mentioned here (and saying he was "replaced" is confusing). All you need is "Ken Scott, who had engineered Bowie's two previous albums, was hired to co-produce alongside Bowie. His debut as a producer, Scott would borrow some of the acoustic sounds of George Harrison's All Things Must Pass (1970), an album he engineered."
  • Done.
  • "the Spiders reconvened" - was there a break for them to have to RE-convene?
  • Not really but I mainly used "reconvene" in this case as before they recorded without Wakeman and after he was hired they continued. Maybe "regrouped" would be better? – zmbro (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struggling to see the importance/relevance of any of the Dudley Moore and Chameleon stuff. Especially the latter, since they don't seem to be a notable band, and the song is not from Hunky dory.—indopug (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indopug Alright so I have done a LOT of tinkering with the background section. I've specified some things, trimmed down excess stuff (including the bits about the Man musicians), as well as add a sentence on his early-1971 single "Holy Holy"; it was a flop but I think it should deserve at least a mention. More importantly I've done some copy-editing and most importantly reorganized the entire section in chronological order. I've also done some trimming with the music and lyrics section, as like you said there's many things that are unrelated to the album in question. Please let me know if you think anything needs to be done. – zmbro (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments about Backing and Writing
  • Let me start off by saying great job! You clearly care about this article and want it to be the best it can. So, thank you for taking my comments in the right spirit and working hard to implement them.
  • Thank you!
  • Why did Defries want to terminate Bowie's Mercury contract?
  • Long story short, Bowie's contract with Mercury was expiring in June 1971 and Defries felt that Mercury had not done Bowie justice financially. Mercury was planning on renewing his contract with better terms but Defries felt another label would be better for Bowie financially. Bowie had A LOT of management problems between '69-'76 and I felt that going into all that in his album articles wouldn't be that necessary unless they directly related to the album at hand (which it did for HD) – zmbro (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see that "duo album" quote box before and honestly it feels weird. First of all, what is a "duo record"? Second, I can't shake the feeling of a guitarist trying to overstate his own contribution (to the level of Bowie's) and underplay the bassist and drummer's. Also, "it was just like the things we did as a duo"—they were a duo previously?
  • Removed it
  • Just to confirm: were the Spider from Mars named as such during the Hunky Dory sessions? I thought it was a Ziggy Stardust thing.
  • No up until the Ziggy era they were called Ronno. I think I should make that clear and then mention the Spiders for the first time at the end
  • Different thing actually. – zmbro (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel you should recast the second paragraph (from the second sentence onwards) as being about BOTH Scott and Bowie being co-producers? Even the latter is making Bowie his debut in the role, but that isn't mentioned. Why did he don that role? What impact did he make? (you do mention "No, wait, listen" and him taking "an active role in the album's sound and arrangements" but you should explicitly tie that in with him being a co-producer) Also feel free to expand on what Scott borrowed from All Things Must Pass, if the info is there.
  • I'll see what I can do. Buckley doesn't really specify about ATMP so I'm not sure there's really much else I can do there.
  • "generally dismissive attitude "—do you mean hands-off attitude? "Dismissive" implies being rude and curt with people.
  • It wasn't that he was "dismissive", it was that he was preoccupied with his new wife and managerial issues at the time that he wasn't as "hands-on" in the recording process. I believe I have added more explanation at the MWStW article if you're interested.
  • That extended sentence about not knowing the "Changes" dates should really be relegated to the Notes. Here all you need is " 'Changes' was recorded around ...".
  • Yeah you're right. Fixed.
  • Gem Productions feature twice in the article. What are they?
  • Pegg writes: "...Defries's colleague Laurence Myers, who had recently formed a management company called Gem Productions (which also took The New Seekers and Gary Glitter onto its books in 1970). Gem would under-write most of the expenses incurred over the next couple of years, until Bowie's success led to the formation in 1972 of MainMan, Defries's business empire." Deals with the management thing. I guess I could remove the references to them, as doing so wouldn't really change anything. – zmbro (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments about Music and lyrics
  • As its title says, this section should be about the music and lyrics found on the album. What is NOT is a collection of summaries of every song. What I mean is, even stuff like "Described by Pegg as one of Bowie's seminal recordings and one of the greatest songs of all time by Rolling Stone,[50][48] the song is also considered a manifesto for Bowie's entire career" is irrelevant here; we are only interested with what the song sounds like and what Bowie is singing about in it.
  • Further, since nearly every song has its own article, even much of the (way too) detailed speculation about what the lyrics refer to and have been inspired by, doesn't always need to be here. For example: 'In a 1973 interview, William Burroughs believed the lyrics to be influenced by T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land, though Bowie denied that he read Eliot.[64] Pegg finds this hard to believe, and also considers the cactus to be similar to the one found in Eliot's "The Hollow Men".'
  • I will continue working tonight and tomorrow on trimming.
  • On the other hand, what definitely should belong here is stuff that cannot be relegated to a song article—what the album as a whole sounds like and what its themes are in general. That initial paragraph takes a good stab at it, but after a couple of sentences it seems to get overwhelmed by quotes (which are often not about the content itself, but whether it is good or bad; not what we're interested with here). I'd like to see it expanded mostly in your own words, of the musical styles (more acoustic; piano-based; poppier than before etc) and lyrical themes (America; "explorations of politics, psychology and occult"; pop culture; the album's "preoccupation with the silver screen")—indopug (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had discussed this with Ian Rose during the GA review. The main problem that aggravates me with this is I haven't been able to find that many online reviews of HD and biographers like Pegg don't even give a general description of the music/lyrics. I originally updated this section to sort of put it into my own words but Ian told me that at that point in the review to leave it be and see what PR or FAC reviewers think about it. I greatly wish I could get two paragraphs on the songs/music/lyrics in general but I haven't found many reliable sources that describe them. I'll see what I can do. Continue to do work yourself if you'd like; I'd greatly appreciate the help. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • Add "Defries felt that Mercury had not done Bowie justice financially" to Background.
  • Done
  • Looks like it is. Don't know how that's been wrong this whole time.
  • Again, Bowie was also co-producer; you need to mention that even he was debuting in the role.
  • In Songs, make sure the first instance of every song is wikilinked.
  • I originally had this but realized a lot of them were duplinks so I removed them.
  • 'the title "Hunky Dory" was announced at the John Peel session' - you should mention this in Writing and recording as well, when the Peel session comes up.
  • Added
  • "Hunky Dory was released on 17 December 1971 by RCA"—why do you need 3 refs for this?
  • Explained this above but Cann & Pegg have both given different release dates so I wanted to make it clear.
  • "RCA did not promote the album much due to a warning that Bowie would be changing his image for his next album, and Hunky Dory's unusual album cover, described by Pegg as a fait accompli." - this sentence is highly unclear. Where did this 'warning' come from? And though I understand what you mean by 'fait accompli' I feel you should elaborate on it to explain it better. The "and Hunky Dory's unusual album cover" construction is also awkward.
  • Changed the sentence to "The album received little promotion from RCA due to its unusual cover image and a warning that Bowie would be changing his image for his next album." I forget where I read that (it was one of the biographers) but I believe the warning was from Defries. I also don't believe it was as much a "warning" as it was a notice, but I can verify that once I find who said it. – zmbro (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "citing Beggars Banquet by the Rolling Stones, Damn the Torpedoes by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, War by U2, and The Bends by Radiohead" - a very long list, and completely unnecessary IMO. The point being made is clear enough without these examples.
  • Now that you mention it I agree. Fixed.
  • The Rankings section might be better presented as a table. The prose is very repetitive here otherwise.
  • Found the lead to be weirdly imbalanced: way too much stuff about the album cover and title, but not enough on the lyrics or the place of HD in his career. I also don't think the names of publications or of some boxset (albums are reissued every five years, who cares) belong in the lead. I took the initiative reorganising it to more closely match the style of the rest of the article.
  • Reference style: when you have archive dates you don't need retrieval dates. Having three dates in a single ref makes it extremely bulky.
  • The retrieval dates in these cases would be access dates, which are required.
  • Add a photograph of Bowie to the article.
  • I would but WP has zero photos of him from 1971 and including a photo from any other year would not be right. – zmbro (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Minor concerns above notwithstanding, this is a thoroughly researched article and well written too. The nominator's positive response to FAC comments have only made it better.—indopug (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • All images seem to have an appropriate license or non-free image rationale and are appropriately used.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I think the second paragraph of the reception section could be more fluent. There’s enough organization there that I’m not going to oppose — the “Bowie starts to become Bowie” comment is an echo of the previous comment — but the rest of the paragraph is little more than a listing of some opinions. It doesn’t read as though the writer of the paragraph has done more than select some quotes and put them in order; paragraphs in an article should convey a message, using quotes to illustrate the message, rather than simply listing quotes and letting the reader deduce the message. See WP:RECEPTION for more details on what I’m trying to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see exactly what you mean. I'll see what I can do. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie How does it look now? How to change a few things, including adding one and subtracting another. – zmbro (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s much improved. I won’t support or oppose as I haven’t read the whole article but I think you’ve fixed the issue I pointed out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great article, I've done a little read and here's a few notes I picked up on a first pass:

  • In February 1971, he was sent on a promotional tour of America - seems like an odd thing to mention that he was sent; rather than just went on a promo tour Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was odd too but Sandford actually uses the word "sent". Pegg just says "after his promotional tour" but since Sandford is cited I felt it was best to use how he described it.
  • Removed link
  • Fixed
  • Fixed.
  • Very good point. There was originally another para but I moved that to background. Fixed now.
  • Critical reception has the same issue with large paragraphs, could be split into four. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I separated the first as I agree it was too long. As for the second, in its current state, I think it's better as is. Even though it's 8 sentences, in terms of flow, I think it reads better as one. I know numerous pubs have listed it as one of his best albums so I've thought about adding more of those (in that case I would make that it's own para) but I've struggled with whether or not that belongs in legacy or critical reception.
  • *sales figures based on certification alone

^shipments figures based on certification alone - do we need both notes when only one is active? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually think both of those are a part of the template itself as I can't seem to change that.


Otherwise, this article is hunky dory. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski Thanks very much for the comments! Everything should be taken care of :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Good job
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/Hunky_Dory/archive1&oldid=982316260"