Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Next Day/archive1

The Next Day

 * Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... David Bowie's 25th and penultimate studio album The Next Day. An album that brought its creator back into the spotlight after almost 10 years of media silence (well sorta) and one that, even with its flaws, proved he still had things to say. To this day it is one of my favorites of his and, while I and many others will always favor Blackstar over it, it's easy to say The Next Day is one of his better works. Having expanded it many months ago, I came back to it in preparation for its 10th anniversary in March and, with the much-helpful prose suggestions given by Coeil here, I believe it is fully ready for the star. I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and concerns. Cheers – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * Might a non-free sound sample be justified?
 * File:David Bowie (135687113).jpeg is missing alt text
 * Oops, fixed


 * File:David_Bowie_(135687113).jpeg: not seeing that licensing at the given source?
 * File:Tony_Visconti.jpg is quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Swapped it out with another one. The original was literally the only photo of him on WP for quite a while so that's why I only had that available. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Might a non-free sound sample be justified? If so, then which tracks? Otherwise, a no-samples option shall remain, especially to me, but seems that the option may not be viable to certain editors. What do we expect readers to learn about the whole album by reading the whole article? If I wanna hear samples of the album's tracklist, I'd go to a music website (or music store). Can the whole album's music and lyrics be well understood without samples in the article? George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what? Never mind. If Ceoil likes to upload tracks or approves someone else's in the article, then I won't interfere further. I just now withdrew my FFD nominations on a few of his uploads earlier. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC); expanded, 04:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Er. Ceoil didn't make the suggestion, I did. I'd suggest you take whatever issues you're having with Ceoil elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To note, issue with George and myself resolved amicably on his talk; apologies zmbro and Nikki, carry on. Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * "The characters vary from soldiers, assassins, school shooters and street gangs" - if you start off with "vary from [something]" then you have to follow it with "to [something]"
 * Oops, fixed


 * "surprising fans and media who had assumed he retired from music" => "surprising fans and media who had assumed he had retired from music"
 * Fixed


 * "Aside from several on-screen appearances, the only studio recordings he made" - the on-screen appearances were studio recordings......?
 * Oops, clarified in a better way.


 * Bowie performing image caption does not need a full stop
 * Done


 * That's what I got as far as the end of "background". I'll return with some more comments later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "the first venue chosen, whose identity" => "the first venue chosen, the identity of which" (pretty sure "whose" is only supposed to be used with people, not places)
 * "the studio's personnel quickly exposed the secret.[8][6]" - refs not in order
 * "Bowie instead chose a venue close to his home, Crosby Street's the Magic Shop" - could be interpreted that the Magic Shop was his home, so suggest re-ordering
 * "Recording officially began on 2 May 2011" - tempted to say it either began on that day or it didn't so the word "officially" is not needed
 * "a six-string and twelve-string acoustic guitar" => "six-string and twelve-string acoustic guitars" (to make clear it wasn't one of those mad things with two necks)
 * "then bring the band back together" => "then brought the band back together"
 * "with Leonard at the guitarist's home in Woodstock" - wikilink Woodstock as there are multiple places with this name
 * " whom he described The Next Day to as "quite a rock album"" - => "to whom he described The Next Day to as "quite a rock album""
 * "Different types of conflict concern many of the tracks" => "Many of the tracks concern different types of conflict"
 * "feel in need of a set of York Notes to get through them" - wikilink York Notes?
 * That's what I got as far as the end of "music and lyrics". More to come :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All fixed/adjusted – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "Some compared rhythm " => "Some compared the rhythm"
 * "Bowie shares a songwriting credit with the Shadows' Jerry Lordan" - although he wrote some of their big hits, Lordan was not a member of the Shadows
 * ""God Bless the Girl" was intended to be on the album, but released" => ""God Bless the Girl" was intended to be on the album, but was released"
 * "and has ran out of options" => "and has run out of options"
 * "from the beat of Reality's "Days", the ambient guitars and layered vocal harmonies of Hours and a slide guitar from that album's single "Seven" (1999)" - there's no "to" to pay off the "from"
 * ""Atomica" was unfinished by the album's released" => ""Atomica" was unfinished by the album's release"
 * "It consists of a white square with the album's title in austere black Doctrine font, obscuring Bowie's face, and a line drawn across the original album's title" - it doesn't consist only of those elements, so maybe "the adaptations consist of" (or similar)
 * "depicting a stick-thin Bowie leaning at a 45-degree angle gripping microphone stand" => "depicting a stick-thin Bowie leaning at a 45-degree angle gripping a microphone stand"
 * "Bowie also appeared in a Louis Vuitton ad" - I would say "ad" is too informal/slangy and it should be "advert" (or possibly even "advertisement")
 * "did not conduct interviews and or play live" => "did not conduct interviews or play live"
 * "Despite these criticisms, Marchese stated the album enjoys repeated listens" => "Despite these criticisms, Marchese stated that the album enjoys repeated listens"
 * "the surprise release of "Where Are We Now?" was the first of its kind by a major artist and was utilised by artists" - think there's a few missing words here. Maybe "the surprise release of "Where Are We Now?" was the first of its kind by a major artist and the approach was utilised by artists"
 * "Moody wrote the 1994 novel The Ice Storm, whose 1997 film adaptation" => "Moody wrote the 1994 novel The Ice Storm, the 1997 film adaptation of which"
 * That's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shit my bad I got busy irl and completely forgot about this. I promise I'll get back to it tonight. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All fixed/clarified/adjusted/etc. Thanks for the comments :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

 * I have noticed there are a decent amount of quote boxes used throughout the article, and I was curious if they were all necessary? Do you know if there is a stance or consensus on the use of quote boxes in FA writing? I do not have strong feelings either way, but I still wanted to ask because I do not think I have noticed quote boxes in FAs before (though I am likely just forgetting right now).
 * Apologies in advance as I know that this was asked above, but I do not think you replied to this question (and if you did, then apologies for missing it). I am curious on why an audio sample is not used in the article? It is completely down to personal preference and I would not have issues if you just prefer to not include this (as I know there are multiple perspectives on the inclusion of audio samples), but I was just curious on your perspective on this point.
 * Regarding the above two points, I've used quote boxes in my last few music-related FAs and they've passed fine. I mainly have so many here since there are no free images of Bowie himself from this time period and so the page itself doesn't look so bland. I suppose some them aren't really necessary.
 * Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I do not have any issues with them or a strong opinion either way. I could understand how they can be used to keep the article visually appealing and engaging while still conveying information to the reader. I will leave this matter up to other reviewers, but it is not an issue for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have thought about which songs I could add an audio sample for, but I haven't figured that out yet. Knowing the significance of other audio samples I've added in the past (ala "Changes", "Warszawa", and "Sound and Vision"), I know I was able to find quotes and such that explained the significance of those but I can't think of anything I've found for Next Day (yet). I'll continue searching as I realize an audio sample (or two) would probably be beneficial to understanding the variety of material this album contains. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Sometimes, there just is not a solid justification for an audio sample as it is a piece of non-free media so the usage of that should be kept minimal. If I see any potential rationales for any songs, I will let you know. I will pay attention for that when I read through the article again over the next few days. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would link the following items in the lead (English history, Russian history, school shooter) as they are linked in the article and the linking should be consistent for both the lead and the article.
 * Done – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have been told in the past to avoid the use of the following sentence construction in FA writing (i.e. with X verb-ing). I have noticed that this sentence structure is used in these parts (with all personnel involved signing non-disclosure agreements, with Bowie and Visconti acting as co-producers, with Visconti saying "In the beginning he was finding his voice"). I do not have a strong opinion either way about this, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention. I would check to see if there are other instances in the article.
 * Hmmm, I've never heard that before, weird. I will keep that in mind and make some adjustments. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am curious if there is a way to avoid the repetition of "sound" in this sentence: However, the single's melancholic sound did little to indicate the album's overall sound. That being said, it seems deliberate and I do not have an issue with it if it is intentional repetition, but I still wanted to point it out to you either way. I have just seen (and admittedly done) this kinds of notes in the FAC space.
 * Changed the first to 'style' – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope that my review is helpful. Some of my comments are more clarification questions than actual recommendations for revisions so apologies for that. I very much enjoyed reading this article and I found the material to be very engaging. I appreciate all your work on David Bowie article. I really should listen to more of his music because he is unquestionably an icon. I will read through the article a few more times once everything has been addressed, but I doubt I will find anything major. Have a Happy Holiday! Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses to my above messages. I will try to do a few more read-throughs of the article over the next couple of days. Thank you for your patience! Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if the "very different" quote is entirely necessary and I think you can get away with paraphrasing it.
 * Removed the very – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why "Love Is Lost (Hello Steve Reich Mix by James Murphy for the DFA)" has a citation in the infobox? It should be supported and cited in the article with the other singles, and there are a few bits about this remix in the "Later singles and promotion" subsection. although "the Hello Steve Reich Mix" and "for the DFA" bits are not clear to me.
 * Added to prose and found an article from Bowie's website confirming the release date (had to dig deep on that one). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I have no idea why the "the Hello Steve Reich Mix" and "for the DFA" parts exist in the title. I've searched for that and haven't been able to find it, so your guess is as good as mine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if "only" is appropriate in this part (and only cost $12.99) as it seems to read a bit too promotional for Wikipedia. This may sound rather silly, but I initially read this as saying that it cost that much for someone to buy (like as a product). Is there a way to clarify that was how much it cost to create the video?
 * I conveniently clarified it when working on the above comment and before I had even read this comment. Went back and removed the only. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This is my last set of my comments and once everything is completed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Replies above. Thanks again for your comments. I'm busy all weekend but I promise I'll get to your FAC when I can! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything! I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a happy new year. Take as much time as you need for my FAC. There is absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil
As mentioned above was involved in the lead up to the nom. Although expecting to support, like Like Aoba47 I do have concerns that need to be worked through, mainly around padding (eg excessive quotes, and music journalistic on the one hand and overly-formal on the other language such as "Regarding the lyrics, Visconti stated...". As its x-mass and the truce and all, rather than object ;) will gather thoughts in next few days and make actionable complains towards end of weekend. As a confession, I'm more of a "greatest hits of Bowie" man myself, so do have some objectivity. Ceoil (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * do we need "under exclusive license to Columbia Records. " in the opening statement? It doesn't exactly draw in readership attention.
 * Changed to "in association with". If that's not fine we can just say "and" – zmbro (talk)(cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd remove "through his ISO Records label, in association with Columbia Records" altogether. Maybe "without prior announcement" as a tease. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found it's standard to keep the record labels in the first or second sentence. I also prefer not to repeat 'without prior announcement' here and again two paragraphs later. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC) add-on I also wanted to keep the same wording as the body. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * what are "new musicians"
 * In this context I intended it to mean players who had not played on a Bowie album before, hence "returning contributors". Atm I can't think of a better way to get that point across. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * announcement of the album were posted online, without prior announcement, - repetitive
 * Removed "without prior announcement". I think we can get away with that given "recorded under complete secrecy" and "among the first surprise albums". – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 *  and regarded as Bowie's best work in decades - is / was or both? Ceoil (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to say "was" twice (i.e. "was released" and "was regarded") – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "How Does the Grass Grow?" returns to wartime - "returns to" is more music journalese
 * Changed to "reflects". I'll keep that in mind for the future. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey appreciated Bowie's enthusiasm for input from the musicians, telling Pegg - complex and tortured, who, what?
 * That better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "...Valentine's Day" on 18 September, "Born in a UFO" on 26 September, "(You Will) Set the World on Fire" the following day, "Dancing Out in Space" on 8 October and "So She" on 23 October - do we need to know all these days? This level of sepcificity seems make my eyes drop and distract from the more interesting factoids. This is my overall concern; there is too much minuet / raw facts to hold a readers attention...the article would be better if a lot shorter; frankly it could be trimmed by about a third.
 * Hmm. This is quite a major statement to be giving this far into the process (imo). I can easily just condense things like that to "recorded from September to October", but if you're saying we need to trim a third of the article before you'd support I'd rather just withdraw it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No I just meant condense that sentence as much as you can. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh. I trimmed the dates to be just general. How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * mmmm, much better. Ceoil (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Bowie took great pains  - hmm, was careful to...
 * Changed


 * Of the 29 songs spooled for - Spooled? Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to use "recorded" again but I changed it to that as I see what you mean now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example the release date given for "Love Is Lost (Hello Steve Reich Mix by James Murphy for the DFA)"
 * Fixed and added to prose


 * Fn12 is missing publication date. Ditto FN14, check throughout
 * Fixed


 * What makes Mojo4Music a high-quality reliable source? Second Disc? Virus Fonts? AnyDecentMusic?
 * 1) Mojo4Music is the actual website for Mojo magazine (see here). I unfortunately don't have access to the actual prints so I didn't want to cite the specific issue without a page number. Luckily I found the info I needed was included on this webpage so I used that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Per their about page it looks reliable to me, as the author has written liner notes for several well-known artists, but if you don't think so I can scratch it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless there's something else, I'd suggest doing that - writing liner notes does not necessarily make one a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Second disc material removed. I think that should take care of everything unless you had any other concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) VirusFonts is the personal blog that Barnbrook posted it on back in 2013. Pegg had the quote in his book but I wanted to see if I could find the original which I somehow managed. If it's not ok to use I'll just go back to sourcing him as I think the quote is useful enough. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) AnyDecentMusic? is listed as reliable over at WP:RSMUSIC (listed there by this 2016 Discussion). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * FN27 is missing page number
 * Found the ref online (requires a subscription though)


 * FN128: edition statement shouldn't be part of title
 * Fixed


 * FN95 is missing both author and publication date.
 * Fixed


 * Generally it seems like a lot of refs are incomplete in some way, please review. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Replies above. I've tried but can't find authors for refs 11 and 21 (both NME that are now dead) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose by David Fuchs
Forthcoming this weekend. Ping me if I'm tardy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging as a reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, was a busy weekend. Anyhow, I'm opposing at present. Thoughts as follows:

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * General thoughts and prose :
 * I think at this point my biggest stumbling block is the prose. We've got what I would consider an overuse of quotes, and generally more convoluted sentence constructions where something simpler and clearer would be better.
 * "released over several dates in March 2013"—this strikes me as really weird.
 * "He mostly cut off contact with many of his prior collaborators, including Tony Visconti, his longest working partner, whom he began speaking with after 2006" if the rift apparently just lasted two years, it seems weird it gets called out, especially in the context of this album topic where he's collaborating with him and he's talking about Bowie in the very next paragraph.
 * "The demos, written during Bowie's hiatus, were created on digital recorders and complete with basslines and drum patterns. According to Visconti, the ensemble primarily wrote notes on the demos and did not record any material until the final day." Who wrote these demos? The prose makes it sound like Bowie was just listening to other people's music before recording his own.
 * "Visconti later said that he spent the time writing and developing the material." Visconti developed the material, or Bowie?
 * "According to biographer Nicholas Pegg, the first venue chosen, the identity of which remains undisclosed, was discarded before recording began as the studio's personnel quickly exposed the secret" holy comma splices, Batman.
 * "After the initial May sessions, recording halted until September." This seems to conflict with the text earlier, which says that recording took place sporadically until autumn 2012; the text in between also only just mentions May 2011 events. Reading further, it becomes clear the first sentence of "first block" is referring to the overall recording process at Magic Shop, but its placement in the "first block" subsection implies it's only talking about the first sessions. Also, where does the "block" nomenclature come from? Seems weird to divide it that way and with that word, especially since it doesn't sound like there were very regimented timetables in studio recording of the album. I would combine the "block" subsections and make the timeframes more clear.
 * I get the point of wanting to break up the text since there aren't images, but all the quote boxes absolutely fall afoul of MOS:PQ, and also I think leads to an issue where Visconti seems to be unduly represented in the article text.
 * I don't think the list of words makes sense for inclusion, especially if it's not the subject of critical commentary beyond what's there.
 * Why does the final paragraph of the critical reception section start with criticisms of the album but end with a bunch of best-end lists?
 * The reception section I think needs more work, especially with the introduction of summaries referring to specific aspects. See MOS:WEASEL.
 * Media :
 * Didnt spot outstanding issues with media used.
 * References :
 * I went through the discussions for listing AnyDecentMusic, and I'm disinclined to consider it a high-quality source for FA purposes. I agree with Sergecross in the RfC that given the aggregate is not significantly different it serves no purpose to include alongside MC, which is actually mentioned in the prose.
 * Do you think it's salvageable in its current state or would it be best to close it? I'm going back through it and my other Bowie articles and agree I've gone a little to quote heavy in the past. I'm willing to put in the work here but if it's too much it's no big deal. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point given there are issues deeper than just the prose, I think you're better off withdrawing and workshopping it before resubmitting. I'd be happy to assist but my time isn't really there for doing the kind of edits necessary at FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon for intruding, but doesn't the pull quote policy only apply to pulling quotations already in the body? All the (many) quote boxes I've ever seen in articles - FA or otherwise - use them for comments relating to but not in the body.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's the question of pull quotes by technical definition (text pulled out and highlighted) and then pull quotes by function that the MOS calls out (decorative quote boxes that can place undue weight on certain content, even if it's not literally duplicated from the body text.) The article is running afoul of the latter—it's priveleging certain opinions mostly for decoration, not consideration to due weight or neutrality. This is a problem with relying on heavy quotes throughout an article, but it's magnified if you've chosen to highlight them and physically separate them through formatting as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian
Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited as usual, other points: As always with your Bowie noms, there's a lot of good research and the organisation is generally logical, my concern (apart from prose issues that I copyedited or have raised above) is the number of quotes and the depth of detail. I'm not advising to take a cleaver to it, but I'm also not going to support or oppose until I sit back and re-read, and perhaps make or suggest some further cuts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He mostly cut off contact with many of his prior collaborators, including Tony Visconti, his longest working partner, whom he began speaking with after 2006. -- So we're saying that he didn't speak to Visconti between 2004 and 2006, but cut off contact with other former collaborators for much longer?
 * The demos, written during Bowie's hiatus... -- Wasn't this whole period a hiatus for Bowie? Do we need that clause?
 * Visconti later said that he spent the time writing and developing the material. -- Since he'd already written and recorded stuff, do we mean Bowie wrote new material and developed the old?
 * until the autumn of 2012 -- Should avoid seasonal references.
 * The Next Day opens with the ferocious title track -- "Ferocious" isn't very encyclopedic, any other options?
 * a pompous mid-1980s rocker -- ditto.
 * The lyrics are in debt to Martin McDonagh's dark comedy In Bruges (2008), in which a narrator admits to committing an unspecified tragedy that led to a violent death, but his true identity, whether a police informant or contract killer, is unclear. -- I take it you mean the song re. the stuff about the narrator, this is not quite the plot of In Bruges as I remember it yet this is what the sentence implies ATM.
 * That tends to be the main issue with my work from the feedback of others. When you're reading so many sources sometimes you unfortunately don't know when enough is enough, especially for me; hence why I've gone back and made major cuts and copyedits to the 80s and 90s stuff. Thanks for the help as always. I'll get to your points later tonight. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose by SchroCat
I'm also going to have to oppose this at the moment, like DF above, it's mostly based on the prose


 * Lead
 * "released over several dates in March 2013": what's wrong with "released in March 2013"
 * "It was his first studio release in ten years having retreated from public view after his 2004 heart attack.": at the very least a comma after "years", but the rest of the sentence is a little lumpy
 * "took place under secrecy": grammatically garbled
 * "contains many call-backs to Bowie's earlier works": I'm slightly struggling to understand this, and it's certainly not encyclopaedic
 * "It made headlines around the world,": journalistic, rather than encyclopaedic
 * "appeared on The Next Day Extra in November.": do you mean "which was released in November"?

That's just the lead, but a quick skim down shows a few other similarly bumpy areas. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ps. Sorry - I hate opposing (it just feels such a brutal and personal step when one is on the receiving end of it). - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No biggie. I know where you're all coming from and understand it still needs work. Like I asked David, do you think at this point it's salvageable at all or is it too much? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that you could withdraw now and drop it into PR and ping people to ask for comments. I would certainly be happy to give a full review there and there is no downside in pulling and taking your time to get it fully polished. may have a different view, so maybe wait for him to chip in before doing anything drastic. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just on the PR bit, I think as a general rule get eyes on your music articles at PR before FAC -- I know you tried that for this one and got no takers but you can always ping me and I'm sure one or two others who have come to the party in your previous FACs would also be happy to get notice... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Withdraw request
Hey could you please withdraw this? I'd like to take it to PR to fix prose issues and such. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, done. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)