Talk:Outside (David Bowie album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look in a few hours...you know the drill....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Casliber Queries below. Thanks for reviewing! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reuniting Bowie and musician Brian Eno following the late 1970s Berlin Trilogy, the two were inspired by concepts "outside" the mainstream.... - the subject changes between clauses. Suggest rewriting or splitting somehow.

• How's that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Better - a semicolon might work slightly better for flow but no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• In late 1993, Bowie and Eno began phoning and faxing each other ideas... - why not just say, "In late 1993, Bowie and Eno began sending each other ideas..."

• So it's in past tense I changed it to just "sent". – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reading Schwarzkogler's article, it's not clear he cut off his penis....?

• Hmm that's odd. I found this article stating that he did, but if he didn't that's the only thing my sources attribute to him. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Personnel-wise, Bowie recruited players from across his entire career. - do we need to say " Personnel-wise"?

• I guess not.

• ... Kızılçay was oppressive at first, finding them confusing and useless - not sure what "oppressive" is supposed to mean here..

• He basically detested to their use, thinking they weren't that helpful. The source states that he felt uncomfortable compared to the making of Buddha and was "not a fan" of the cards. That make sense? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Frontman Trent Reznor was initially hesitant about the idea at first, finding it intimidating, but graciously accepted. tautology - lose one of "initially" and "at first". Also, why "graciously" accepted?

• My bad. The sources basically say he was enthusiastic about it when he accepted so I thought I'd add an adjective. Remove that? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah I would Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• In subsequent decades, Outside has garnered a more positive reception --> I'd say "Over subsequent decades, Outside has garnered a more positive reception"...actually come to think of it, I think I'd just say "Outside has since garnered a more positive reception" unless there is a really compelling reason to mention decades...

• Done

• He primarily criticised the production as dated and concept as too underdeveloped - why "primarily"? Do we lose meaning if we remove it?

• Nope, removed

• to have "a truly significant impact", - rewrite using different words so we can lose the quotation marks

• How about "a long-lasting impact"? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah that'll do Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sean T. Collins also criticised its incomplete state - consider changing adjective to "unfinished" or somesuch as we've just used "incomplete" above.

• Done

• One source of criticism Outside has received concerns its length - why not just "Outside has been criticised for its length"

• Fixed. Sometimes I use too many words

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): Right, this passes on comprehensiveness and prose. Your prose is engaging and pleasant to read, but could probably do with some more tightening like this, for instance. My ability to pick up redundancies drops dramatically after my first read-through so I recommend a new set of eyes on it before FAC. I do think this is otherwise within striking distance of FA-hood. A nice read all up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)