Jump to content

Talk:Never Let Me Down

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNever Let Me Down has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starNever Let Me Down is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. It is also the main article in the Never Let Me Down series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 21, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 18, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
August 8, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Musicians

[edit]

Is Mickey Rourke (mid-song rap on Makin' My Love) the actor Mickey Rourke? If not, this wiki link should be removed. Pugetbill (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the actor. The limited edition 7" of Day-In Day-Out simply calls him by name, so one would assume that if it was a different Mickey Rourke, they would have explained.

87Fan (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Interview

[edit]

I am working on an article for '...the interview,' which was a promotional-only album released alongside NLMD that includes some album tracks and a bunch of answers for a pseudo-live Q&A session with whatever DJ chose to read the questions. I think it makes more sense include that article here rather than in its own article, since virtually everything (producer, credits, etc) are the same. What do people think?

87Fan (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

[edit]

How well did it sell ?

"Bowie said that, while the album sold more than any of his previous albums" - but "Let's Dance" looks to have done better in the UK and US anyway. -- Beardo (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Never Let Me Down/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Sorry you've had to wait so long--thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feedback inline below. 87Fan (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

At first glance, this seems to have some minor issues, but appears well-researched and a good contender for GA status. I've listed a few initial issues below; once you've had a chance to respond to these, I'll plow on through to the end. My apologies that these are a bit out of order.

  • "this was one of the most enjoyable and energetic albums he had made in a long time" -- and which album is that?
    • Done. (I clarified the statement)
  • "Recalled Bowie, "I took up a 4-track and some guitars, a drum machine, and we started writing up in the mountains. It just worked really well."" -- this quotation needs to be followed by an inline citation
    • Done. (citation added)
  • " "an inspired and brilliantly crafted work. It's charged with a positive spirit that makes art soul food; imbued with the contagious energy that gives ideas a leg to dance on"" -- this quotation needs a better citation; what source is being used here if we don't even know what issue it appears in?
    • Yeah, I knew this was problematic. The problem is all I have is a clipping from the magazine, but the clipping doesn't say what month it is. I now have no way of knowing what issue it came from. Suggestions?
  • Hmmm. Unfortunately, I think that probably doesn't meet verifiability standards; while I'm sure what you're saying is correct, WP:V does require others to be able to find the source, and that would be tricky in this case. Does your clipping have a title, or alternatively, is there any information that could be used to find a fuller citation online?
  • "but by 1989 they had changed their mind and called the album "disappointing"." -- Are we sure it was the same reviewer or review board in both instances? It seems more likely that one reviewer liked and another did not, than the magazine "changing its mind" per se.
    • It was different reviewers for the same magazine. Done. (language improved)
  • " Bowie had picked up on what was happening in America through the media about the treatment of the homeless" -- "picked up on" doesn't seem quite neutral here, as if Bowie has discovered the final truth about homeless people's treatment. Also, it would be preferable to say US to America here, unless Bowie means the continent as a whole. Perhaps just "because of Bowie's concern for the homeless in the United States"?
    • I have never liked the way I wrote that sentence initially. Done. (language improved)
  • Source 14 should be filled out so it's not a bare link; Source 31 needs a title to be considered verifiable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated source 14, but in the process found a good mention about a song so it's now source #12 (because I use the source twice in the article now). I'll work on source 31 because I'm going to have to dig it out of a stack to look it up.
      • Well, that was easier than I expected. Source #31 has been updated too.

More

[edit]

Only some minor points this time:

  • Refs #2-5 and 14 need to be a little more specific to be verifiable--how could someone verify these references? (Were these conferences reprinted in a news story, available on DVD extras, YouTube, etc.?)
  • 2-5 & 14 have been updated. I found youtube recordings of these press conferences (which aren't under copyright restrictions). THey're not the sources I used originally (I have vinyl copies of the press conferences), but they'll do! (i think!) 87Fan (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double-checked with a more knowledgeable user about how copyright works for a press conference recording; that's a situation I haven't encountered before. At worst, we can just list the album information provided in that image without giving a link, though.
  • "Bowie's next few tours were designed specifically to avoid the problems that the Glass Spider Tour was ultimately criticized for" -- what problems are those--is it possible to give a little more detail?
  • I added a little prose here... I was trying to keep this section light since there's a whole article available on the subject, but let me know if there's more that should be done. 87Fan (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #33 probably needs the article title, or perhaps a page number, to be verifiable.

That takes me through to the end of the article. I'll begin the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is great, I'll address these in the next day or so once I get some time to dig into the sources a little better (for instance, 2-5 & 14 are on Youtube, so I just need to locate the right links). Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good! Make sure you find copies on YouTube that you're sure aren't copyrighted before linking per the policy at WP:YT. If we can't find appropriate copies, let me know, and I'll ask some users more knowledgeable about citing videos for advice about how to proceed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the lead has been re-written. This required some changes in the article as I moved refs around, etc. I added one or two refs as well (there was never one for the gold certification before). Let me know if anything needs to be updated - I think I did it all correctly. 87Fan (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear, though I still intend to do one last proofread when we're done. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. Youtube links need to be removed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead needs work to better summarize the article. It should touch on the material from sections like critical response and legacy. Also, the lead should not contain information not covered in the article's body. Facts like the gold certification, the next album, etc., should therefore be moved out of the lead and into the body. Relevant guideline at WP:LEAD
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Some references need minor elaboration to be considered verifiable.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Minor request for more information above.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass
  • Okay, so three things are left, one for you and two for me:
  1. Rewrite lead per suggestions in checklist/WP:LEAD
  2. (Me) Give article one last proofreading
  3. {Me} Confirm copyright status of press conferences -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do this when I get a chance, likely later tonight. I think this (barring any feedback on the lead section re-write) is the last thing I need to change per your feedback. Please let me know if I've missed something.87Fan (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, that should do it. Thanks again for your diligent revisions. I'll let you know if I see anything else in a last readthrough; otherwise, this should be good to go. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, thank you. One note as a TODO: for me: Fix the links to the press conferences to be to the vinyl instead of YouTube. Plus anything you mark in your final readthrough. One last question: should I bother putting this article up for FA status? I've never done that before, if you think this article has a chance I would consider it. Thank you for all your help with this!! I look forward to working with you again. 87Fan (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only saw one issue of possible note: "However, in later years Bowie's take on the album seems to have softened, and he re-recorded the track "Time Will Crawl" in 2008 for his album of self-selected favorite songs, iSelect." This is a little bit original research/speculation. I boldly shortened it; is this acceptable to you? Alternatively, if we can find a source mentioning this "softening" directly, that'd be fine too. Other than that, I think once the YouTube citation issue is fixed, this is ready for promotion.
And it's been a great pleasure working with you, too! Thanks for all your quick and conscientious fixes, as well as your work on this in general.
As for the next step, I'd strongly suggest going to peer review before trying a FA nomination, and possibly putting in a request with the Guild of copy-editors as well. My personal opinion (solely from watching other FA nominations, I've never tried myself) is that FA status is a bit broken these days and involves a good deal of hoop-jumping: precise and consistent format of citations, rigid adherence to the MOS in various style points, and putting up with a lot of unnecessary suggestions for prose "improvements". It's also hard simply to get enough reviews to pass if you haven't built up a lot of relationships with other editors that you can ask. You might also try to find an editor experienced with music/album FAs who could be a co-nominator to shepherd you through if the peer reviewers suggest that the article is ready. IMHO--not to take anything away from the many amazing editors who contribute FAs--you could write 2-3 additional GAs in the time that it would take to polish this up to FA requirements, and it'd be a far more significant contribution. But that's just my two centse. Whatever you choose to do with it in the future, good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Youtube links have been replaced. I am fine with your edit to the statement about his re-recording the song "Time Will Crawl" and I appreciate your feedback on next steps. In all likelihood I will focus on improving other articles to GA quality and not worry about FA status. Thank you very much!! Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. 87Fan (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Never Let Me Down. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with Never Let Me Down 2018?

[edit]

Looking for feedback here. The announcement of NLMD '18 has spurned quite a bit of press interest. Where do we put information about the release? On one hand, it seems notable as the first and only re-release of a past album, and the first album to be (re-)released posthumously. However, it's only being released as part of the Loving The Alien box set, and not at its own (all press releases seem to say it's exclusive to the box set). So do we add it to this article in its own section, as I've begun? Or give it its own article? or add it to the LTA box article? Thoughts? Thanks. 87Fan (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

87Fan Hey! I know I'm 2&1/2 years late but I thought I'd ask here. Do we have any reception from RSs regarding the 2018 remix? AS it stands, all that's present in the section is development and etc. I've heard read online from fans that the 2018 remix improves the record (I agree) but it would greatly help if we had publications that supported that. – zmbro (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zmbro, there are a few reviews that I could find. I'm not 100% sure which of these are considered reliable vs not so I'll list them all. Hopefully there's something useful in here! Thank you!
87Fan Thanks for these, I've begun incorporating them into the article. I would really like for Nicholas Pegg to release a new version of THe Complete David Bowie so he can include more info since 2016, notably the New Career and Loving the Alien box sets; I especially wanna hear his opinion on the 2018 remix. We can only hope. – zmbro (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Never_Let_Me_Down&oldid=1211285280"