Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Next Day/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

The Next Day

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

In preparation for another FAC run (hopefully). Pinging FAC contributors Ceoil Ian Rose David Fuchs SchroCat I have begun major copyedits of the article based on all of your comments at the FAC. I still have much more to go through in terms of paraphrasing and trimming but I wanted to open this now so we could possibly get a head start.

I hope to hear from you all but if not it's no biggie.

Thanks, – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try and take a look the end of this weekend/early next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs Reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs Re-ping just in case. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aiming to close this and renominate this weekend after substantial copyedits. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

I did promise I'd come along, and will be here shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
  • You've got three quote boxes in there, which is probably three too many. The problem with the boxes is that they highlight an opinion above all other sources. Various pieces of research into reading patterns show the eye movement in readers (generally, not just on WP) focuses on non-text elements: boxes, images etc. On WP, as an example, that means that on opening an article means the eye goes straight to the top right hand corner and the image or infobox, rather than working in the standard F-shape (left to right, working down the page). As the reader scrolls down, the eye doesn't automatically follow the text, it jumps to the next image or—for this article—quote box. These take on a greater significance than the text. If they were key quotes from Bowie, there would be an argument for them, but they aren't, so it's probably best to remove them.
    tl;dr: take them out or integrate within the text!

More to come on the nitty gritty of the text. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all of them and replaced the Barnbrook one with an image of him (which I honestly intended to do initially but I got distracted with quotes) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

The lead reads much better than it did at FAC.

  • "The designer Jonathan Barnbrook adapted the cover art from Bowie's 1977 album "Heroes", and places a white square with the album's title obscures his face and the "Heroes" title is crossed out." tense clash between "adapted", "places", "obscures" and "crossed" (personally I'd go with past tense all the way through, as you're talking about the actions of the designer that have been completed.
  • Reworded.rearranged the sentence
Background
  • I'm struggling with "The only studio recordings he made were minor contributions to other artists such as TV on the Radio and Scarlett Johansson." He didn't make contributions to other artists; maybe with or for other artists – and a comma after artists would help the grammar too.
  • Changed to 'for'
  • "Bowie returned home and went silent for four months, spending the time writing and developing the material they had recorded": this sounds like he took holy orders and didn't speak at all! How about "Bowie returned home and spent four months rewriting and developing the material they recorded"?
  • Done

More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording
  • "Looking Glass Studios, the location where Bowie recorded his records from 1997's Earthling to 2003's Reality at, closed in 2009" I'm not sure you need the "at"
  • Done
  • "The on and off Magic Shop sessions" If you're going to use the phrase, it should be "on-and-off", but I think "The sessions at Magic Shop continued sporadically until the autumn of 2012" is a little clearer, but your call.
  • Done
  • "a six-string and twelve-string acoustic guitars": this should either be " a six-string and a twelve-string acoustic guitar" or "six-string and twelve-string acoustic guitars".
  • Done
  • "to reference the demos": I have no idea what this means – I suggest rewording it a little (MOS:JARGON, whether technical or industry-specific slang should be avoided)

More to come - either tomorrow evening or on Thursday (nightmare day coming up at work tomorrow!). - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First block
  • "Leonard was joined by bassist Gail Ann Dorsey and former Heathen (2002) and Reality guitarist David Torn" -> Leonard was joined by bassist Gail Ann Dorsey and guitarist David Torn, the latter of whom had appeared on Heathen (2002) and Reality.
  • "replaced by Earthling (1997) drummer Zachary Alford, who played on most of the album's tracks" -> replaced by drummer Zachary Alford, who had previously appeared on Earthling (1997); he played on most of The Next Day's tracks. (Both of these point make the album title look like part of a false title. I'm holding back on my normal trigger of insisting the definite article is used, but I do have limits!)
  • "the May tracks": "the tracks recorded in May"
  • "received subsequent work later on": they either "received subsequent work" or they "received additional work later on", I suggest the former
  • "the initial May sessions" -> "the initial sessions in May"
  • All corrected
Second block
  • "Recording went on hiatus during mid-2011": you told us this in the last line of the previous paragraph
  • "at the guitarist's home in Woodstock": delete – too much ephemeral detail
  • Deleted the entire sentence
  • "Heathen bassist Tony Levin" -> "Tony Levin, the bassist who appeared on Heathen
  • Done
  • "Bowie recorded vocals on and off from September 2011 to January 2012" why not just "Bowie recorded vocals between September 2011 and January 2012"
  • Done
Secrecy
  • "requiring people involved": this does need the definite article and should be "requiring the people involved"
  • Done
  • "Visconti and Slick both had difficulty keeping silent..." I'm not sure what purpose this paragraph serves – it seems to be too trivial to be included. Yes, the bit about it being in secret and the NDAs is on point, but near misses and people's dreams aren't worth the inclusion, IMO.
  • Trimmed

Will continue with "Music and lyrics" soon (ish!) – SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics
  • "and monarchs of Great Britain": "and the monarchs of Great Britain"
  • Done
  • The 'list of words': I have a bit of a problem with this. As it stands I don't think it should be included, because it's not well explained enough for people to understand the connection or rationale. If there was more information on it, then it's possible there may be more reason for inclusion
  • David said the same thing during the FAC. My thing about it is, it is the only source of 'promotion' Bowie himself made for this album (Visconti did most of the talking). So, I felt it was necessary to include it but if we remove it, should I just remove the bit entirely? To me it's important to say that he sent a list of Moody but we could move that down to release and promotion. I want David's opinion as well but what do you think? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get it's Bowie's own words, but what we've got here is Bowie's own words rearranged against the songs on the album - so it's not necessarily what Bowie had in mind - it's what Pegg thinks Bowie may have thought, which is a bit different. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain that I'm just putting it out there for you to think through and consider - there's no demand from me for any particular course of action, and you should certainly listen to the counsel of others too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Songs
  • Is there a picture of Iggy that doesn't look like he's picking something out of his arse?
  • Changed to his infobox one
  • What are "gaunt guitars"?
  • Changed to "guitar-driven funk rock groove"
  • "the Flaming Lips' "Is David Bowie Dying?"} -> "the Flaming Lips' song "Is David Bowie Dying?""
  • "Hunter-Tilney called the track "a sexagenarian take on the Hollywood depravity" of Aladdin Sane's "Cracked Actor" (1973)": for those who know zero about A Lad, you may need to expand on this to make it clear, because it makes no sense without the context
  • "The lyrics of "Love Is Lost" are written from the perspective of a 22-year-old": says who? You write this in WP's voice as fact, but it's an opinion that should be accredited as such
  • "Overall an organ-heavy rock drudge": ditto. And are you sure you mean "drudge"? The OED describes "drudge" as "To perform mean or servile tasks", or someone who does chores of that nature. The source describes it as a "an organ-heavy rock grind" and you put it as "an organ-heavy rock drudge", which is a bit too close in phrasing too. Maybe re-phrase the whole sentence?
  • "and includes references to changes the city went through": "to the changes"
  • Done
  • "The rhythm track utilises an elegant": there's nothing wrong with "uses": there's few bits wrong with "utilises"
  • Done
  • "Visconti said the song is "about a [non-specific] young female singer who gets discovered in a nightclub in the 1960s".": do we need a quote for something that can easily be rephrased?
  • Condensed
  • "A driving rocker": I have in my mind's eye a man in a denim jacket behind the wheel of a car. The OED classifies people as "rockers", not styles of songs – and I think most people over 30 would probably be confused by the term.
  • Changed to "driving rock song"
  • "the "thrashier numbers"": this can be reworded without the quote. (Rules of thumb: 1: if you're only quoting them because it sounds good, then think hard about rewording them; 2: if you're going to quote someone, you should identify them in the text – MOS:CONFORM actually says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion")
  • My bad, fixed
  • (As an aside, I always dislike reading in-depth "examinations" of songs by music journos – they come out with such tiresome pretentious crap such as "an abstract everyman, an embodiment of every deranged leader who ever lived" and "a little more than crossword clues without answers". They sound like second-rate English teachers parroting something they heard when they were students) There's no criticism of you or the article here: you're just reflecting what is out there.
Artwork and packaging
  • "in austere black Doctrine": "austere" is POV
  • Removed
  • (Note f) "depicting a stick-thin Bowie": "stick-thin" is POV
  • Removed
  • "Visconti assumed the design was a joke conceived by a fan initially." -> "Visconti initially assumed the design was a joke conceived by a fan."
  • Done
Announcement
  • "social media and smartphones ... enacted a new age that embraced spoilers and leaks": it didn't "enact" anything, there was no "new age" and nothing was "embraced" – none of these are encyclopaedic. Perhaps something along the lines "The rise of social media and smartphones since the release of Reality was accompanied with the reality that spoilers and leaks were increasingly common, making it difficult to keep projects secret", or something similar?
  • "So, Bowie wanted to "maintain a total information blackout" until he was ready to announce": three things wrong here: 1. ditch the "so"; 2. "maintain a total information blackout": You don't need a quote for this; 3. Announce what?– there's no subject
Release
  • "It charted at number 102": Horrible Americanism. "It entered the charts" is British English
Critical reception
  • I haven't been through this section too closely. I find review sections in the format XX from YY publication said "Blah blah" too bumpy to read – and this seems to be very quote heavy section here
Legacy
  • Done
  • "analog" should be "analogue"
  • Done. I can always remember "catalogue" but not that one apparently.

That's it for here – and I hope what I've said is of help. I'm sure others will ship in and give it a better polish than I have, and I suspect they will also say to trim down on the number of quotes used – there are about 75 of them in the article, which seems an awful lot!

After this PR has finished and you go back to FAC, please ping me again. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciate the feedback SchroCat! I didn't realize there were still that many quotes even after my in-depth copyedits before I opened this. There must've been over 100 when I brought it to FAC :O I'll be sure to keep your general comments in mind when writing future articles and when I go back to past ones. Thanks again! :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

edit

I see the ping got buried amid a bunch of FAC closure notifications but I decided to have a look at PR on spec and here you are -- will aim to get along in a few days (perhaps even the next day)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may have skimmed a bit here and there but overall it seems to read pretty well without being overly detailed, so my copyedit was fairly light. Couple of outstanding points:

  • The songs were written during Bowie's hiatus -- given Bowie was out of the public eye from 2004, this covers a long period, can we be any more specific time-wise?
  • In Uncut, Cavanagh found his singing authoritative and particularly appreciated his use of a wide assortment of voices. -- I have to admit this sounded a bit trite compared to some of the other observations, do we really need it?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Note

edit

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Next_Day/archive2&oldid=1140618301"