Talk:Aladdin Sane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAladdin Sane 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 starAladdin Sane 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
October 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
August 8, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Inclusion of peripheral information of only marginal relevance to the subject of this article.[edit]

An editor using two IP addresses has been edit warring to include in the article "British glam rock performer Marcus Reeves cited the musical as an influence on his debut album". (There is no doubt that it is the same editor: both geolocation and editing history say so.) This information may be of importance to Marcus Reeves, and if so then it is reasonable to include it in the article about him. However, unless as good reason can be given why this is of special importance to a knowledge of Aladdin Sane, then it should not be included here. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Aside from this tidbit being of marginal utility anyway, an entire section makes no sense unless more information on the album's influence on other artists/works can be found in reliable sources. Right now it looks like trivia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aladdin Sane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I believe it meets the criteria so stated. Fantailfan (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aladdin Sane. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aladdin Sane. 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) 12:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again, I can't resist this one -- unlike Hunky Dory, this is one of my fave Bowie albums, and I did considerably more to get this to B-Class standard years ago, though not so much I think that I'm too involved to comment here. As ever I'll have to ask you to be patient while I copyedit and check new sources, but it seemed to help Hunky Dory on its way to FAC, given how that review is looking so far -- time will tell of course...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Looking forward to it. – zmbro (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Well written

As usual I've copyedited so generally happy with the prose; outstanding points:

  • The television performance helped propel the album to No. 5 on the UK Singles Chart -- UK Albums Chart?
  • Fixed
  • Also in the lineup for the album was American pianist Mike Garson, who was suggested to Bowie by RCA executive Ken Glancey as well as singer-songwriter Annette Peacock, after she declined to play the synthesiser on Aladdin Sane; Garson had played on her then-recent I'm the One album -- not sure I follow, did Glancey suggest Peacock, who declined and then Garson was offered the job?
  • I'll have to get back to you on this one as I don't have Cann nor Buckley on me at the moment to verify. – zmbro (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "got the best piano sound out of any of his performances for Bowie. -- closing quotes?
  • Whoops, fixed
  • "linering echo delay" -- "lingering"?
  • Whoops, fixed
  • Lots of duplinks -- do you have the checker loaded? Note that it's probably fair enough to duplicate the song title links under Music & lyrics, but anything else is probably overkill.
  • Yeah I got the checker suggested to me from FunkMonk over at the Hunky Dory FAC. They should all be fixed now – I never really realized how much I overlinked until I used it.
Verifiable with no original research
  • Sources generally look reliable although I note there's no consensus on HuffPost in that regard. Granted we're talking entertainment rather than politics but you can probably afford to lose it anyway.
  • Good point there was already a ref there so it's fine without it.
  • Formatting-wise, as with Hunky Dory, you might see if you narrow the publication location to cities rather than countries.
  • These should all be fixed now, except for Moonage Daydream. I can't seem to find anything about its publisher Universe. – zmbro (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck to follow...
    • Having long ago written much of the material citing Carr & Murray, Buckley (albeit the first edition), Sandford, and Pegg (again an early edition), I can vouch for the integrity of the referencing there so I mostly checked Doggett and found no issues there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Broad in its coverage

Seems pretty well-balanced; compared to my first read of the Hunky Dory article I wouldn't say there's too much unnecessary detail (I boldly removed a sentence or two).

Yeah I definitely have learned from that one and I would say this one is in much better shape. – zmbro (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Stable

No concerns here.

Illustrated

Images appear to be appropriately licensed, I'd just consider moving Mike Garson to the Music and lyrics section (perhaps under Side one given his contribution first comes to the fore on the album's second track); I'd also left-justify so he 'faces into' the text.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update
Hi Ian Rose! I wasn't sure where we were at with this one – almost completely forgot about it – but imo, this one isn't ready to be a GA yet. When I originally expanded Aladdin Sane, I did so immediately after Hunky Dory. Since undertaking HD's FAC, I've realized that I overly detailed it where I had to do excessive trimming, especially in the music and lyrics section. I believe I did the same thing for Aladdin as looking over it now, the music and lyrics section is WAY too detailed. I would be happy to do some trimming but in its current state, it does not deserve to be a GA. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. – zmbro (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro Maybe you should reach out now to the user and request for them to close this review? --K. Peake 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake He'll get to it when he gets to it I'm in no rush. Plus, I wanna see if he believes it's still salvageable. If not then he can fail it. – zmbro (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, and tks for your patience Zmbro... I did look at this yesterday in light of your comment above but didn't get a chance to post -- my gut feel was that this article was a bit less detailed than Hunky Dory in any case (possibly as a result of the Hunky Dory GAN) and when I checked page size I found Aladdin Sane is indeed about 700 words less than Hunky Dory, so don't think we have a serious issue there. I just want to do a bit more spotchecking and then we should be able to wrap up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Ian. If you don't think any major trimming needs done that's good with me. :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Everything good? – zmbro (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks again for your patience, Zmbro -- happy to pass now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling album of 1973?[edit]

Per theofficialcharts.com that has been here for idek how many years:

  • "Elton John had the biggest selling album of the year with Don't Shoot Me I'm Only The Piano Player which spent six weeks at the top in February and March and he ended the year with Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. David Bowie hit the top for five weeks in May and June with the second best seller of the year Aladdin Sane, and yet another five weeks in November and December with the cover versions album Pin Ups."

This same source is used at Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player. You citing a wiki page doesn't mean anything because you can't self-reference WP. Yes, Music Week is reliable. But the fact is, I've never heard of bestsellingalbums.org and I'm going to need verification that it's reliable before trusting it. Also your edit at List of best-selling albums of the 1970s in the United Kingdom was reverted because you provided no source. Continue the discussion here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand that that 2007 article was based on saying which was the best-selling album of each year in the number of weeks it was at number 1? which makes 0 SENSE, Bowie's spent 27 weeks in the top 10, Elton's 11, it's obvious that Bowie's sold more, at least in that year and in the UK, so seriously, I'm going to tell you ask please, be attentive to something else, let me do my job, I am dedicated to correcting data, and you don't let me do it, I don't know why it bothers you so much, seriously, you are trying to impose what you think is o It's not right, and you have no right to do that! 85.251.23.136 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you're the one imposing and changing things without consensus and to fit your own ideology. You have not used one reliable source to support your claim. You are simply disobeying WP's rules through no discussion and edit warring until you get what you want. It only "bothers me so much" because of that. If you used a reliable source we wouldn't have this issue, but you can't seem to understand that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Bestsellingalbums.org is unreliable per WP:NOTRSMUSIC, so it is unacceptable to use. Therefore, you need to find an actual reliable one. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Bestsellingalbums.org – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to 1973 in British music: The list of the top fifty best-selling albums of 1973 were published in Record Mirror at the end of the year, and later reproduced in the first edition of the BPI Year Book in 1976. I'm mostly unavailable today but if you could investigate the Record Mirror archives to see if what this is saying is true we could do something about it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself removed sources without citing a reason why, which is now reverted. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short: your argument that WP cited it as the best-selling album when you yourself changed it is completely invalid. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aladdin_Sane&oldid=1195489161"