Talk:David Bowie (1967 album)

David Bowie (1967 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.

David Bowie (1967 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
Date	Process	Result
March 10, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
August 8, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Reynolds, Simon (2016). Shock and Awe: Glam Rock and Its Legacy. London: Faber & Faber. pp. 82–85. ISBN 978-0-571-30171-3.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowie-davidbowie.jpg

Image:Bowie-davidbowie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardian flam

I know what the Edwardian period is, and I know what a flam is, but I'm at a loss as to what the phrase "Edwardian flam" is supposed to signify in "...and the Edwardian flam shared by such contemporary songs as the Beatles' 'Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!'" Can anyone clarify this? · rodii · 22:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Bowie (1967 album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 14:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promised I'd get to this one – sorry it took so long though! Tkbrett (✉) 14:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on opening this and not doing it right away. Been a long week ... Anyway, no more excuses!

Shiiiit completely forgot about this. Can no longer edit as much as I used to so things slips away. I promise I'll get to this tomorrow! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 05:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I'll be gone for the weekend, so the soonest I'll be able to finish the review is likely Monday. As long as we're on the same page, I don't think anyone else cares. Again, they should really be paying us more ... Tkbrett (✉) 12:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top and lead

Perhaps a Distinguish template pointing to David Bowie (1969 album)?

Done

Writing and recording

... decided that Bowie would cease live performances due to poor finances ...: what does this mean? If he had poor finances, wouldn't he have wanted to continue doing live performances to have a stream of income? Or does it mean his live shows weren't bringing in much money?

They halted live performances so David could focus on recording the album – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be reworded to make it clearer? Tkbrett (✉) 18:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond the scope of the GA criteria, so if you don't want to change it it won't affect whether it passes or not, but there's a MOS:SANDWICH issue between the quotebox and image of Vernon.

Wish I could fix that my imo it's important to have both. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any explanation of why some tracks had different versions between the singles and album tracks? Seems a little strange to spend the money on the extra effort without a good reason.

I honestly wish I had that answer for a lot of his remakes, particularly "Sue", "'Tis" and "Prettiest Star". For "Rubber Band" (from my understanding) it was so there would be a consistency in sound (MV didn't produce the original). For the others I couldn't tell ya. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Style and themes

According to biographer Chris O'Leary, David Bowie found Bowie composing third-person narratives compared to the first-person love stories of previous releases: Whose previous releases? Bowie's? Or just pop music in general?

Bowie's. Clarified – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The American release, issued in August 1967, omitted "We Are Hungry Men" and "Maid of Bond Street", which Pegg speculates was possibly due to the US practice of trimming track listings in order to "reduce publishing royalties": Almost definitely. There's an article on the first page of the March 4, 1967 issue of Billboard (link) which states that the standard for American LPs was 12 tracks, though the alarming trend that article discusses it that more and more 10- and 11-track LPs were showing up; bad for the buyer, good for the record companies. Here's a helpful explainer from Michael Frontani: British albums typically contained fourteen tracks, and royalties were paid as a percentage on total albums sold. In the U.S., publishers were (and are) paid a mechanical licensing fee for each song that appeared on the album. As a result, more songs would mean more publishing fees that would have to be paid. (The Beatles : Image and the Media, University of Mississippi Press, 2007, p. 53).

You're saying I should add this to the article? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially necessary, but it may be helpful if you want to ever improve it to FA status. I guess this is the only Bowie album made in the pre-Pepper era, and so is the only one where the American record company still screwed around with track listings. Tkbrett (✉) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I ever will tbh. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other sections

Good.

Final comments and verdict

Well referenced, as always.
Copyvio score of 55.1% only due to quote boxes. No issues here.
Images are PD or appropriately tagged.
I made changes as I read through, so make sure you don't have any issues with those.

Tkbrett As always thanks for reviewing Tk! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No more need to hold this up. Thanks! Always a pleasure. Tkbrett (✉) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (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

Typo?

Did Fearnley assert a "bar had four crotches" Doug butler (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]