Talk:Lodger (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateLodger (album) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleLodger (album) 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 starLodger (album) is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
January 20, 2021Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 8, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Bass guitar v. rhythm guitar[edit]

This is in reference to the song "Repetition." That "slur sound" is too high (both in terms of frequency and the string gauge) for it to be a bass guitar. Also, its placement in the mix is hard left, which is not usual for mixing a bass guitar but makes more sense for a rhythm guitar. (Typically, bass guitars and bass/kick drums are placed in the center of a mix, not only because they help "ground" the overall song, but also it helps keep the needle locked onto the playing groove.). And finally, there's already a bass guitar playing a straight-forward bassline (with a slight funk edge too). I call it a "rhythm guitar" because there's already a lead part playing and what that guitar is doing is closer to a rhythm guitar. That is my justification for the edit. Djproject (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobagem[edit]

This page is nonsense--the author wrongly believes his/her intuitive impressions to be objective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.147.150 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, i.e. that this is meant as a serious comment, perhaps our anonymous contributor should familiarise him/herself with the references cited or the professional review. Happy reading...! Ian Rose 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Built to Spill[edit]

I would very much like to know how one would even consider a Built to Spill reference useful information for someone looking to read about a David Bowie album. Were one to catalogue all references to Bowie and/or his songs, it would be an entire book. Thus, that reference seems highly irregular and gratuitous. Was the author perhaps a member of that band? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.220.237.198 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment and lyric as possible WP:CV not fair use, and not germaine to article. --Fantailfan 11:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether the contributor of the Built to Spill tidbit was a band member, it was already on the page when I rewrote/expanded it yonks ago. I decided to leave it because while Bowie references in songs are indeed a dime a dozen, a ref to Lodger, surely one of his most overlooked albums of the 70s (unjustly IMHO but there it is) is a little more unusual. However, I'm not terribly fussed either way and certainly wouldn't get worked up about it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 10:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shall restore it, and make it pretty. You're right, reference to an album is less common. Fantailfan 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added that scrap of useless information when there was nothing on this page except a stub and a track-listing copied from Teenage Wildlife. Now that there is actually useful information about the album on this page, I don't think it's necessary anymore. --Kramden 07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's germane. because of the reference to the album. Fantailfan 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if anything, that tidbit would belong on the wikipedia page for the built to spill album. not here.--Progjunky 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD releases[edit]

The list of CD releases on this (and, come to think of it, several of the other Bowie album pages) is...well, wrong, so I've fixed it. I'm not feeling particularly artful this evening, though, and I'm sure someone can find a better way of expressing the same information.Jwlidtnet 07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobahn quote[edit]

It could be notable that on the last lines of "Red Sails", Bowie is jokingly quoting/alluding to the lyrics of Kraftwerk's "Autobahn". --2003:71:4E6A:C991:780B:69A7:5F9B:8FB8 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lodger album cover[edit]

I found this 1979 TV ad promoting the album, and in the end, it shows the Lodger album cover. Is that the way how it's supposed to be placed, with the name on the bottom instead of the right of the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr00Mister (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lodger (album). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lodger (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 06:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this like you so wished for! --K. Peake 06:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Remove venue parameter from the infobox, as that is for live recordings
  • It's just excess code but sure
  • Replace hlist with bullet points
  • No need to, creates the same thing
  • I'm not seeing anything about that there – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of the class=hlist is preferred as it offers a benefit to users of screen readers" --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah that. Even though there are only 2 items, using the hlist seems appropriate here since it's used for genres (for consistency) – zmbro (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released on 25 May 1979" → "It was released on 25 May 1979"
  • Not necessary
  • It reads a lot better having the next sentence mention the release date after you have introduced the album, especially since it's as far in as his 13th. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunky Dory used the same worded and no one at FAC said it was bad so I did the same here. – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the latter wording would read better, I guess you can keep this per the above comment and since it's not really offending anyone. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lodger was recorded mostly" → "the album was recorded mostly"
  • No, since the word 'album' is used eight words prior
  • That is true, but this is an entirely different sentence from that one and there's already been a comma in it, plus you've used "the album" zero times in this para. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true, but sure – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that the album is not used anywhere in the para outside of this sentence, but album is. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "joining from the tour." → "joining from a tour." since otherwise it sounds like you are referring to Bowie's tour
  • What do you mean? I am...
  • Oh sorry, I got confused here. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples that follow the cards aren't sourced as being techniques inspired by them; they are mentioned in the prior para within the body
  • I'll be damned you're right it does appear that way. I rewrote two paras in body to match (the cards actually did inspire these methods)
  • "After the tour," → "After the Isolar II world tour,"
  • Not necessary, the reader's not going to forget what tour what it was
  • You have not mentioned the name of the tour since the album's first para; this currently stands as the third consecutive point you've wrote "the tour". --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Sure
  • "Lodger is divided into" → "the album is divided into"
  • Done
  • "took the album's cover photo," → "took the accompanying cover photo,"
  • Done
  • "peaking at No. 4" → "peaking at number four" per MOS:NUM
  • "and No. 20 on" → "and number 20 on"
  • I kept it as "No." and not changed it to "number" as that's what it was when I started expanding. Using this method, it makes more sense to keep it as "No. 4" and "No. 20" for consistency.
  • Like a GA review, not everything done during expansion is necessarily perfect; shouldn't you make this change to the preferred language? --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I guess it makes sense. Changed No. to number throughout. – zmbro (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • "including the top 10 hit" → "including the UK top 10 hit"
  • Done
  • That was worded that way by the copy-editor so it's fine as is
  • "Lodger initially received mixed reviews from music critics, with many calling it the weakest" → "The album received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, being viewed by many as the weakest" because "contemporary" is the better wording on an encyclopaedia
  • Thank you for the clarification; only change this part to not starting with the title then. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over the years, and it is" → "over the year and it is" since the article is in British English
  • Done
  • "Many have highlighted its use" → "Some have highlighted the use" since that is more accurate
  • Sure
  • "with the album's original" → "with Lodger's original"
  • No need
  • Remove target on mix
  • Done
  • "remixed the album (with Bowie's approval) for inclusion on the 2017 box set" → "remixed the album to the approval of Bowie for inclusion on the 2017 box set,"
  • That's way worse
  • Maybe try something similar because even though brackets aren't bad on Wiki, they don't really fit here ideally. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just removed them that work? – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that is totally fine. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • Retitle to Background and development
  • I don't find that necessary
  • It talks about the trilogy and relevant things – aren't certain parts development? --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't classify it as that no – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie moved to Switzerland with his wife Angela" → "David moved to Switzerland with his wife Angela Bowie" per MOS:SAMESURNAME
  • "He moved to" → "David Bowie moved to"
  • Restating his name here would be dumb. Added David to the first sentence, as that still works for MOS:SAMESURNAME.
  • Sorry, my bad; just change it to "Bowie moved to" so you don't start two consecutive sentences the same way. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There the pair recorded" → "There, the two recorded" since "pair" makes it sound kind of like they were a couple
  • Agreed, changed
  • Add release year of The Idiot in brackets
  • Done, they did so much that year lol
  • We're still talking about '76 at this point; that's the year they met, as both Low and The Idiot were recorded that year
  • My mistake, but change to 1976 because it otherwise comes across as '77 due to the album being mentioned as released then. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "in 1976" interrupts the flow of the sentence. I honestly think it's fine as is. – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first instalment, Low, was recorded" → "The first instalment, Bowie's 11th studio album Low, was recorded"
  • Done
  • "beginning in September 1976 and continued through November," → "from September to November of 1976," to be less wordy
  • Done, much better
  • "following Bowie and Pop's move" → "following Bowie and Iggy Pop's relocation" since that is not his stage name
  • "Bowie toured as Pop's" → "Bowie toured as Iggy Pop's"
  • He is referred to as Pop throughout his main article, so the same can be applied here
  • I beg to differ, as that being his main article is an exception since it would be tedious to constantly write the full name though here he's only mentioned a few times. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it's his main article doesn't make it an "exception". Artists like Lady Gaga are referenced throughout WP as just Gaga so Pop would be no exception. – zmbro (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do know what you are getting at here, but that is for articles like their songs/albums where the artists are the main subject. For the "Drive Slow" article, we agreed for me to identify Paul Wall by his full stage name since it is not his real name. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie and Pop returned to" → "the two of them returned to"
  • Changed to just "the two"
  • "Pop's next solo album" → "Pop's next studio album" and it is acceptable not writing the full stage name when it was mentioned so recently
  • I used solo because before this, he was a member of the Stooges.
  • Add release year of the album in brackets
  • Done
  • "in April and May 1977." → "from April to May of 1977."
  • Done, but using "of" is excessive
  • "Visconti and Eno, "Heroes"," → "Visconti and Eno, his 12th studio album "Heroes","
  • Done
  • Add the year anyway, though. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add release year of the composition in brackets
  • The special aired in 1977, but that song went available until it was released as a single in 1982; it's release year is not that relevant to this album. The point of this para is to show how much Bowie actually did from 76–77.
  • It is fine in this context due to the release you mentioned, but you should generally add release years in brackets or write them before titles. --K. Peake 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released as an album" → "which he released as an album under the same name" but maybe reword slightly, as this adds quite a few bits before the title of the composition
  • It's fine the way it is

Recording and production[edit]

  • "in September 1978." → "during September 1978." to avoid overusing "in" and because the break wasn't for the entirety of the month anyway
  • Good idea. Fixed.
  • "of Bowie's Berlin Trilogy," → "of the Berlin Trilogy,"
  • Done
  • "in Switzerland was very different from that in Berlin. The studio" → "in Montreux was very different from that in Berlin; the studio" because you should compare two cities, not a country and a city plus the sentences can be merged since they are small as well as of relevance to each other
  • I see what you mean. Fixed
  • Shouldn't [19] be solely at the end of the sentence?
  • So Buckley talks about Hansa when discussing "Heroes" but doesn't mention Mountain until 20 pages later, hence the split. Would it be smarter to just add the page from ref 19 to ref 20?
  • Probably, as the refs are literally next to each other. --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink acoustics but if this is an opinion expressed by someone, attribute it to them
  • Done, it's not
  • Img looks good!
  • Does previous records refer to those of the Berlin Trilogy? If so, then mention that.
  • "Belew's future bandmate" → "Belew's eventual bandmate" to avoid overusing "future"
  • Smart, fixed.
  • "work on the album" → "work on Lodger" since "Heroes" was the most recently mentioned album
  • Good point, fixed
  • These are excess links that don't add anything to the page
  • It is linking to pages with informative musical info though, not overly obvious ones like guitar and piano; are you sure not to add these? --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was a song article I'd say sure, but since this is an album article I really don't think it's necessary. – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instruments (Alomar and Davis did so on "Boys Keep Swinging")." → "instruments, as Alomar and Davis did on "Boys Keep Swinging"."
  • Done
  • "and "Red Sails" were" → "and "Red Sails", were"
  • Done
  • "these cards were" → "the cards were"
  • Fine as is
  • Sure, but only because I linked Monopoly
  • "used these cards previously" → "used them previously"
  • Done
  • [29][28] should be put in numerical order
  • Fixed
  • "during the sessions than" → "during the sessions than those for"
  • Done
  • What band are you referring to? Please specify.
  • The backing band
  • "only six of the album's ten tracks." → "only six of the 10 tracks on Lodger." per MOS:NUM
  • Consistency. And MOS:NUM doesn't state numbers after 10 HAVE to be numbered instead of typed
  • "out" by Lodger," → "out" with the album,"
  • We're talking about a trilogy, so specifying which album makes sense than not
  • Change to "by the time of the album" then or something similar. --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's way worse. It's honestly fine as is. – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sessions at Mountain" → "The sessions at Mountain Studios"
  • That's unnecessary
  • It has been multiple paras since you stated the full name of the studio; you did for Hansa Tonstudio, so why not this one? --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh good point, fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At its conclusion," specify whether this means the conclusion of the Mountain sessions or the tour
  • Done (was the tour)
  • "at the Record Plant in New York City in March 1979," → "at the Record Plant in March 1979,"
  • This is the first mention of NYC...
  • "finish the album at the Record Plant in New York City." it is mentioned first at the start of this section. --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh damn it is. My bad... – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his lyrics, instrumental overdubs and began" → "his lyrics and instrumental overdubs, as well as beginning" since there are only two parts he recorded
  • Changed to "where he recorded his lyrics and instrumental overdubs, and began"
  • Sure
  • Why? No need
  • It is wikilinking to a type of guitar, rather than a trivial one like to the guitar article. --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it doesn't need to be linked in the personnel section, it doesn't need to be linked in the body. (see MOS:ALBUM#Personnel) – zmbro (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I just realized I never updated that section. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decided Davis's original" → "decided Davis' original"
  • I never know which is right. But I think the way it is now is correct
  • Grammatically, you should not have an s after the apostrophe in this context. --K. Peake 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was unsuitable. Work was" → "was unsuitable; work was" since the second sentence gives the conclusion to the other one and it is too short
  • Done

Musical style[edit]

  • [2] does not mention the predecessors as being those rock genres that are mentioned later on in the sentence; see WP:STICKTOSOURCE
  • Removed.
  • The albums ranking for Bowie by COS having the genres as tags does not source them, as the website generally include tags based on the performer's genre(s)
  • The two CoS ones give the genres in the body. The links were also wrong but these have been updated
  • Added one that uses both ambient and electronic
  • [2] should be solely at the end of the sentence
  • Fixed
  • "considers Lodger to be" → "considered Lodger to be" since the quote is sourced from a website
  • Done
  • "Belew similarly describes" parts like this are confusing to me; for quotes by musicians from books, you should use only one tense for consistency and I only noted them because you have been consistent for biographers
  • Done
  • "considered it a forerunner" → "considered the album a forerunner"
  • Done
  • "writes that Lodger" → "wrote that Lodger"
  • Done
  • "found Lodger to be" → "found the album to be" to avoid writing the title too much
  • I agree, but since the sentence is talking about the entire trilogy, it makes sense to mention the title here
  • Yeah you have a point; keep as it is. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "finding elements of" → "observing elements of"
  • Done
  • [46] should be solely at the end of the sentence after [44]
  • Done
  • Bowie wrote "All the Young Dudes" for another band, Mott the Hoople, who released it in 1972. He recorded his own (inferior) version that wasn't released until the 90s so would "earlier hit" apply here? Feels like it doesn't
  • Maybe something like earlier "recording" or "composition" would make more sense? --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition works. Updated. – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [50] should be solely at the end of the sentence in-between [37] and [51]
  • Done
  • "Wawzenek highlights "DJ"" → "Wawzenek highlighted "DJ""
  • Done
  • "while Ned Raggett calls it" → "while Ned Raggett of AllMusic called it"
  • Done
  • "while John Lennon's rhythm guitar work" what are you trying to say here? Reword or remove since it does not make grammatical sense in the sentence.
  • Reworded
  • "Commentators have found "Boys Keep Swinging"" → "Commentators found "Boys Keep Swinging""
  • Done
  • Remove glam rock elements mention per WP:STICKTOSOURCE; AllMusic does not say the song is part of his glam run
  • AllMusic doesn't but Quietus does
  • AllMusic doesn't mention either of the genres so should not invoked here, plus change commentators to The Quietus now that's the only ref. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that's described by" → "that is described by"
  • Done

Lyrics and themes[edit]

  • "travel (primarily side one) and critiques of Western civilisation (primarily side two)." → "travel and critiques of Western civilisation primarily on sides one and two, respectively." to avoid repetitive wording with the lead
  • Done
  • "Because of this, Mastropolo views" → "Because of this, Mastropolo viewed"
  • Done
  • Bringing something like that into this is entirely unnecessary
  • "took with the lyrics." → "took for the lyrics."
  • Done
  • "highlighting the lyric," → "highlighting the line,"
  • Done
  • Remove wikilink on Kenya
  • Sure
  • Done
  • "along with trips to" → "along with ones to"
  • Done
  • "Doggett quipped, "After" → "Doggett quips, "After"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Are you sure long live shouldn't be surrounded by double quotation marks instead?
  • I thought so too but I believe the sources I have just use one one both sides
  • ""Yassassin" is about" → "the song is about"
  • Done
  • "although here the lyrics are" → "although its lyrics are"
  • Done
  • "two critique primarily" → "two primarily critique"
  • Done
  • "Here, the DJ" → "On the song, the DJ"
  • Done
  • "Swiftly compared to" – I don't really think this is the correct wording to start the sentence
  • What is then?
  • Add release year of "Radio Radio" in brackets
  • Sure
  • "described the song as" → "describes the song as"
  • Done

Artwork[edit]

  • "on the cover design with" → "on the cover design for Lodger with"
  • Done
  • "design the artwork for" → "design the artwork for Bowie's 15th studio album"
  • Sure
  • "in Duffy's London studio," → "at Duffy's London studio,"
  • Done
  • "while Duffy captured" → "while the photographer captured"
  • Done
  • "to incorporate it" → "to incorporate the hand"
  • Done
  • No reason to
  • "enhancing the album's theme" → "enhancing its theme"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Sure

Release and promotion[edit]

  • Unnecessary
  • This is the start of an entirely new section, so you should mention the title here. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Fixed – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • "although the promo" → "although the former"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • "released Lodger 25 May 1979," → "released Lodger on 25 May 1979,"
  • Done, wonder how that happened
  • "with the catalogue number" → "with catalogue number"
  • No that doesn't make sense
  • You have used "the catalogue number" on two occasions and "catalogue number" on three; why don't you just use one of them for consistency? --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goddamn it I used "the" every time originally. *facepalm* – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the longest gap" → "marking the longest gap"
  • Done
  • Mention that Space Oddity is his second studio album
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • "on his prior Berlin releases," → "on Bowie's prior releases of the Berlin Trilogy,"
  • Done
  • "peaking at No. 4 on" → "peaking at number four on"
  • Done
  • "peaked at No. 20" → "peaked at number 20"
  • Done
  • "by Numan, who had No. 1 hits" → "by Gray Numan, who had number one hits"
  • Done
  • "lasting for years." → "that lasted for years."
  • Done
  • "taking a more pop direction for his next record," → "taking a more pop orientated direction for his next studio album"
  • Done
  • Looks like you missed this one. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ope you're right. Fixed – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add release year of the album in brackets
  • Done
  • "peaking at No. 29" → "peaking at number 29"
  • Done
  • "It was aided by" → "It was promoted with"
  • Used this for variety, as "promoted" is used earlier
  • "Aided" makes it sound as if the promotion was out of desperation; something like "supported" would be better. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the album's third single" → "as Lodger's third single"
  • Fine as is
  • Not when Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) is the most recently mentioned album. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove wikilink on Netherlands
  • Done
  • No source explicitly states the song failed to chart
  • My Bad, Pegg states this; added

Critical reception[edit]

  • "received mixed reviews on its original release." → "was met with mixed reviews from contemporary music critics."
  • Stated above – means both then and now
  • Keep the sentence the same apart from changing to the met with part then. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found it boring, describing it as" → "found it boring and"
  • Done
  • "Although they felt this was both" → "Although they considered this both"
  • Done
  • It's already linked
  • Don't think "In a more mixed review" should be used to start the first para's last sentence since the preceding reviews are mostly mixed
  • Valid point. Removed.
  • "had "some ideas" → "has "some ideas"
  • Done
  • "but as a whole was" → "but as a whole is"
  • Done
  • Either identify The New York Times author or write the staff, as the magazine itself is not a reviewer
  • Fixed
  • "those qualities were" → "those qualities are"
  • Done
  • "has received positive reviews." → "has received more positive reviews."
  • Done
  • "great end to "his" → "great end to Bowie's" to avoid confusion
  • Done
  • "Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AllMusic also gave" → "Erlewine also gave"
  • Done
  • "describes Lodger as" → "described Lodger as"
  • Done
  • "Brian Wawzenek of Ultimate Classic Rock concludes: "as" → "Wawzenek concluded: "as"
  • Done

Influence and legacy[edit]

  • [107] offers no mention of the album being considered the trilogy's weakest
  • You have to go to page 2 (which is stated)
  • Sorry, I missed that part because it is in small text. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was recorded at." → "the album was recorded at."
  • Unnecessary
  • "Indeed, Lodger has come" → "Indeed, the album has come"
  • Done
  • "Wawzenek describes it" → "Wawzenek described it"
  • Done
  • Add release years of the films in brackets
  • Sure
  • "Christopher Sandford calls it" → "Christopher Sandford calls Lodger"
  • Done
  • "It is one of" → "Lodger is one of"
  • Done
  • "directed by David Mallet" → "directed by Mallet"
  • Done
  • Brackets are not needed in the first sentence of the second para
  • Done; P.S. Parentheses are different than brackets
  • "which had just come out." → "which had just come out at the time."
  • Done
  • "The American indie rock band" → "American indie rock band" to be consistent, as you not used "the" in this context for other introductions
  • Done
  • "the album's songs influenced" → "Lodger's songs influenced"
  • Done
  • Unnecessary
  • Chorus is commonly targeted to refrain in music articles. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure
  • ""Boys Keep Swinging" (Bowie" → ""Boys Keep Swinging"; Bowie" since this piece of grammar being used instead of brackets is fine when the sentence is this short
  • Why has this change not been made? --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops completely missed this one. Fixed – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their lead singer" → "The lead singer"
  • Done
  • Remove wikilink on indie rock
  • Done
  • Target to Death of David Bowie should only be on "Bowie's death" text
  • Fixed
  • "stayed in touch other" → "stayed in touch with each other"
  • I did not write it like that WTH; fixed
  • Must have been someone else editing the article or a typo from you. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the third symphony adding," → "for the third symphony, adding that"
  • Done
  • "not totally disappeared."" → "not totally disappeared"."
  • Done
  • "it premièred in" → "it premiered in"
  • Done
  • "based on Bowie's "Berlin Trilogy"." → "based on Bowie's work."
  • No, the three Glass symphonies were based on the Berlin trilogy
  • Where does the source say this? --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guardian states it. – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on all of those tours." → "on all of the tours."
  • No, specifies which ones we're talking about

2017 remix[edit]

  • Done
  • "for many years calling it" → "for many years, calling it"
  • Done
  • "had that the record" → "had that the album"
  • Record is fine; plus it varies it up
  • "during the sessions for" → "during the sessions for the former's 24th studio album"
  • Done
  • "presented the new mixes to Bowie, who approved of them" → "presented the new mix to Bowie, who approved of it"
  • When Visconti presented what he was doing to Bowie, he had only completed a few of the new mixes (maybe 3-4 of the tracks). Bowie approved of this, but Visconti didn't finish all of them til after Bowie died. So the wording as is is more appropriate
  • "included it in the 2017 box set" → "included it on" plus remove the wikilink
  • Done
  • "writes that the new mix" → "wrote that the new mix"
  • Done
  • "and noted that the" → "and noting that the"
  • Done
  • "praised the remix, believing it has" → "praised the remix, believing it"
  • Done
  • "the record and" → "the record and is"
  • Done
  • "was the highlight of" → "is the highlight of"
  • Done

Track listing[edit]

  • Good

Reissues[edit]

  • "(in the USA)" → "(in the US)
  • I realized that the first few reissues had no refs supporting them so that's been fixed. I also rewrote these sentence and felt this was unnecessary
  • Wikilink EMI on the first instance instead
  • Done
  • Done
  • "a remaster of" → "consisting a remaster of"
  • changed to a colon
  • Done

Personnel[edit]

  • Having it as a redirect is fine

Charts[edit]

  • Retitle to Charts and certifications
  • Usually I remember to do that. Fixed.

Weekly charts[edit]

  • 1979 weekly chart performance → 1979 weekly chart performance for Lodger
  • Done
  • 2016 weekly chart performance → 2016 weekly chart performance for Lodger
  • Done

Year-end charts[edit]

  • 1979 year-end chart performance → 1979 year-end chart performance for Lodger
  • Done
  • Remove target on RPM
  • It's actually a different link than the weekly one

Certifications[edit]

  • Add a dash in the certification column for France; see "I Love You" for an example
  • Done
  • Remove the Asterix for the sales since it is clear they are not units
  • It's the template so idk how to do that.

Notes[edit]

  • Good

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks pretty good at 27.5%
  • Make sure all of these that can be are archived by using the tool
  • I've archived every one possible
  • Italicise the album title(s) on refs 2, 22, 38, 58, 61, 79, 95, 100, 118, 122 and 124, plus box set title on ref 88
  • The ones that use put the title in single apostrophes should be left alone as that's what the title is
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 81 and italicise the album title
  • Not sure what you're referring to here
  • Here is the old revision so you can see which ref I mean; speech marks should not be added to titles as I believe you're aware. There are a couple more issues that violate this MOS; I fixed those ones for you. --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace ref 82 with ref 137 by using a ref name, as they both lead to Bowie's chart history so are essentially duplicates
  • Done
  • Done
  • Target National Public Radio to NPR on ref 113
  • Done
  • Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of The Guardian on ref 121 and italicise the album title
  • Done and done
  • Remove wikilink on David Bowie for ref 126
  • Done
  • Only cite the publisher for ref 130
  • Done
  • Add language parameter for refs 131, 140 and 141, plus why is the latter of the three missing the publisher?
  • Fixed, and I have no idea
  • Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of RPM on ref 138
  • Done

Sources[edit]

  • Done

External links[edit]

  • Good

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; very glad I wrapped this review up over the course of one day as I'm sure you are too! --K. Peake 19:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kyle Peake Many thanks for the quick review. Comments are above :-) – zmbro (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmbro Thank you for responding at such a good rate; I have left comments above anywhere they needed to still be made and hopefully this will become a GA today! --K. Peake 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmbro This is really good right now, apart from the Iggy Pop fix you still need to make. --K. Peake 16:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmbro It is not his real name; you are advised on Wiki to not write the last name in cases like these unless the artist is the main subject and look throughout then you'll see. --K. Peake 17:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro Good thing we have come to a comprise on this subject, after having a good amount of time disagreeing. ✓ Pass now you've implemented the name references properly! --K. Peake 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lodger_(album)&oldid=1208552329"