Talk:Station to Station/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

  • 1. Well written
    • "Bowie said that it was written for – and rejected by – Elvis Presley, while his wife at the time Angie claimed it was penned for her." For a second I thought "his wife" referred to Presley's wife. May want to reword.
    • "('Since when has that ever stopped him from doing anything?', quipped NME's Roy Carr and Charles Shaar Murray later)." Eh, kind of unencyclopedic.
      • Hmm - thought it was a good quote that does say something about the artist, or at least how he's perceived, as well as adding to the cover commentary. If I lose the "quipped", would you change your mind or are set you on dropping it entirely? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed "quipped" to "asked" for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm...I still find the comment distracting. Also, the paragraph could probably lead off the "Release and reception" section instead of standing on its own. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Worked Cover section into Release & Reception. Left contentious quote to see how it looks in its new home - still think a bit of humour doesn't do the article harm...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, all right. Bet it doesn't survive FAR, though. —Zeagler (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "'Stay'...was issued as a companion 45 to RCA's ChangesOneBowie greatest hits collection (though it did not appear on the compilation) which was itself packaged as a uniform edition to Station to Station." A little confusing; how about "...hits collection, though it did not appear on the compilation. (ChangesOneBowie was itself packaged as a uniform edition to Station to Station.)?
    • By the way, what does "uniform edition" mean?
      • Similar packaging (primarily lettering). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a citation for this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you explain it in the article as you did here? I don't think that's a common term – at least not in the States. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend summarizing the Rolling Stone and Circus reviews as you did with the one from Billboard.
      • I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See if it's more what you had in mind now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there's only one certification, drop that section and incorporate it into the "Release and reception" prose.
      • No prob - didn't actually put that in myself anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making a couple of changes to the last sections, and here's why (We can discuss if you disagree):
      • Removing the "LP: RCA / APL1 1327 (UK)" header in the track listing, as it's unnecessarily narrow. (Someone may wonder if the track listing is unique to this issue.) That track listing is the same on every version up until the CD reissues that you've covered well.
        • Again, another editor put those in for all the RCA Bowie albums and I wasn't fussed, so not fussed if they go either...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same with the bonus tracks...unless you can confirm that no other issue has bonus tracks.
        • Ditto. Just not sure if Reissues subheader looks right at the same level as Side One and Side Two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Breaking off a "Production" section from "Personnel" to conform to most featured articles.
        • Okay, only thing I don't like is a section with just one subsection. Is there a standard subheader we can use for the musicians? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. Factually accurate and verifiable
    • Since you're referencing a few books many times (and totaling a range of pages), it would be a good idea to use shortened footnotes.
      • Yeah, you're right. I'm actually quite used to doing it the way you suggest in my many MILHIST articles, this is just following the way I've done it in the other Bowie album articles (which doesn't make it right of course). I'm happy to break it into a short Notes section followed by a full References section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd still like to see more specific notes for the books you're citing. See Californication (album), where each idea gets its own note. That means that some separate references will look identical ([16], [17] and [18]), while others will cover multiple ranges of pages in one reference [21].
            • I think the page range for the main Pegg citation is fairly narrow, same with the main Carr/Murray one (though I have narrowed it still more). The main Buckley one is admittedly too broad so I'm in the process of making his more page-specific and will aim to do the same with Wilckin. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drop the citations in the lead (except for the one referring to the quote). I don't mind your inclusion of a quote in the lead that's not mentioned later in the article, since it's a summary of an idea that's discussed in more detail in the body.
    • There are some non-standard references (the Rykodisc CD reference, for example) that I will try to take care of myself.
      • Great, thanks - didn't know there was such a template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going to convert remaining references to the templates for consistency. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tks. I made some tweaks all round to cover the differences in the templates and display the info in a similar manner, e.g. page numbers, full stops, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. Broad in its coverage
    • (Just a heads-up that the Rolling Stone review in the infobox was removed by someone else without an explanation.)
    • I'm not sure how the "The Man Who Fell to Earth soundtrack" section is relevant to this album.
      • It's pretty well always included in discussions on the album, say in Carr/Shaar-Murray, Pegg, Buckley, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more sure that the "Victoria Station" section is not relevant to this album; it would be appropriate in the David Bowie article, however.
      • I think it's a bit difficult to present a rounded article on the album without discussing The Thin White Duke and the Bowie's foibles while supposedly under the influence of that character. Again, this is not so much my assessment as a distillation of discussions of the album in the major sources. Still, I'll look it over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eliminated subheaders and cquotes to give the Aftermath section more obvious flow; in any case the Victoria Station stuff was always related to the tour, which I gathered you were okay with including in the first place - again, let me know what you think now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, so this info is relevant because Bowie was still operating in Duke-mode for the soundtrack work and Nazi salute incident. Let's slip in some reminders of that...someone not familiar with Bowie's characters might not pick up on it. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the "Legacy" section seems like trivia to me. If there were quotes from these artists about Station to Station and its influence, that would be different. As it is, we're just left to infer (perhaps erroneously) that the album was influential to the artists who name-dropped it.
      • This dates from before there was a significant move against 'pop culture' sections (and has somehow survived without anyone slapping a trivia tag on it)! Not sure about quotes from artists (but will search), however if I cited the references from works discussing the album, would that make their inclusion more reasonable? That will cut down the number of them anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped entirely - if I find worthwhile cited material that prompts reinstating any, will do so but for now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Neutral
    • "It was a substantial hit" is a POV statement. Just stick to the numbers.
    • Another one in the lead: "Featuring the hit single..."

Nice job in creating an informative article for an underappreciated album. Hope these fixes won't be too difficult (converting the references will probably be tedious, though...). I'll try to be around to help. —Zeagler (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing. Don't worry about the references, tedium is part of the deal...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe tonight's efforts mean all points are more-or-less actioned - will await your response. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything not commented on in this round has been sufficiently addressed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Completed last round of actions - your turn again...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passed! You're one of the good guys; a pleasure to deal with. I'd be happy to review any of the Bowie or Roxy Music articles you nominate in the future. —Zeagler (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Station_to_Station/GA1&oldid=249715195"