# Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)

YOu guys got THREE days to do so, or I will -The Bird -  unsigned comment by 66.154.192.129 on 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did it, but threats are not a way to contribute to an encyclopedia, so I'm deleting it. Fantailfan 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys. Fantail, notice you put a cover version section in then removed it - correct in my opinion. Albums shouldn't have sections for cover versions of their songs when there are entries for the songs themselves - and "The Man Who Sold the World (song)" gives prominence to Nirvana's version. A brief mention and the song link, as we already had, is all it needs here. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When you type "The Man who Sold the World", it automatically gives the song.  I know the song is "better known" but I think the album is more significant and should be the automatic destination for typing "the man who sold the world".  I don't know how to do this, but it's just a thought. 160.39.145.130 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and could organise that but let's see if anyone else has an opinion first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
+ Fantailfan (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, having just found this more than two years later! It seems logical to me that the album should take precedence: though it seems clear that the song is more widely known, the album was its origin. After all this time, it looks like a consensus to me...? Should probably be cross-posted to the talk page for the song before any ch-ch-ch-changes are made, though. Nortonius (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, the song is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and shouldn't be disambiguated, whereas the album should. --JD554 (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
On what basis is the song the primary topic, would you say? While it seems that no pages link to the album article, two link to the song article; on the other hand, viewing figures for the album article for last month (June 2010) were 9,246, while those for the song article were 8,267. Not much to choose between them, but it would suggest to me that it's the album people look for on WP, rather than the song, and that seems to be the thrust of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. I'd rule Google searches out, because of the multitude of song lyric sites - Google any album with the same name as one of its tracks, and you'll get zillions more pages on lyrics to the song, rather than about the album. Nortonius (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd check that those viewing figures for June were representative - from the beginning of July 09 to the end of June 10, the album article got 172,680 hits, while the song article got 153,915, and the album got a higher hit rate in every month. Actually I think that this is highly significant, given the original point of the discussion, that a simple search for "the man who sold the world" takes you to the song: clearly people are choosing to look at the album more than at the song, despite the re-direct, without which the viewing figures would probably be even further apart. Nortonius (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I've now posted a note regarding this discussion on the talk page for the song. Nortonius (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a good argument with respect to the page visits of the album article and, due to that, I've changed my mind and agree that the undabbed page should be the album article and the dabbed page should be the song article. Incidentally, you can exclude the majority of lyrics servers for google searches if your add "-lyrics" to your search string. --JD554 (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok great, thanks for coming back with that, and for the tip re search strings - to be honest, I'd forgotten about adding +s and -s to search strings! I wonder, should we go ahead and do something about changing the dab? Don't mind waiting a while for more input, as it's only a couple of days since I posted something about this on the song's talk page.  People don't seem to be finding this the most gripping issue for their attention though, given that so far you and I are the only people to have spoken up in over two years - understandable really! p.s. Hmm! Looks like I completely failed to understand how "What links here" works, too! Something felt wrong about the results I reported earlier so I looked again - of course, both articles are linked from more places than I could be bothered to count, even hiding transclusions and redirects! Oh well - I'm pretty confident of those viewing figures, anyway, anyone can check them! Nortonius (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it's been 10 days since I posted a note on the song article's talk page, and JD554 and I remain the only editors to comment on this in recent times, either there or here, so I think it's time the dab was changed per the above discussion - only, I'd rather not do it myself as I have no experience of moving pages etc. and don't want to mess up! If it's not done in a few hours, I'll ask around for someone who might do it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done Credit goes to editors Sonia and Anthony.bradbury for picking up the pieces of the mess I made when trying to do it myself, and making it work! Nortonius (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any connection to, or inspiration from, Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon? DS (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this album has some hard rock and heavy metal tones, but it also explores progressive and psychedelic and blues. Rock just seems easier. --24.107.207.98 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to whom? (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Dan56 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I just feel that the album has other genres other than hard rock and heavy metal. (The title track isn't even hard rock at all.) If my IP is different, it means I am not at my regular computer right now.--108.218.70.130 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. 'Rock' is a good general term for the album, without going into a long list of all the genres it does explore.  While we're at it, Dan, I see you'd made the main infobox image the early US 'cowboy' cover. I don't think this is appropriate as the iconic cover, the one used for original release in the album's country of origin, is the 'dress' cover. If there's a general rule about using the very first release as the infobox image then I think we're adhering slavishly to it here, not logically, by using the cowboy cover. The community seemed to agree with this for a very long time, as the article has pretty well always used the dress cover as lead image, and you've already had at least one editor revert you on the change, so I'm hoping to convince you here that we should switch back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, other than us editors, what third-party source shares this opinion? That other genres describe the album that way? And I don't think one inexperienced IP in the last week is a worry. I don't know how it's iconic, but if it has replaced the original and is widely distributed, then that would fit the criteria for an alternate cover. If the artist's country of origin should take precedent, then why wouldn't that apply to the release date as well? Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is my point, you say 'rock' and you don't even need a citation. Undoubtedly there's a strong hard rock and heavy metal tinge to it, that's in the main body, with citations, but that's not all there is to it (as the main body also intimates, again with citations) and the source in the infobox about "moving into" hard rock and heavy metal doesn't necessarily support the idea that the whole album can be characterised that way. Don't get me wrong, I wrote much of this article and personally prefer to describe it as heavy metal, but you'll always have arguments over that, even with citations, which are easy to cherry-pick. As to the album cover, it's not so much that someone you describe as an inexperienced IP has reverted your change of cover, but that what you've changed has had the tacit support of the community for a long time, even with the slightly earlier cartoon cover and its date listed among the alternatives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This would, as would this. There should never be cherry-picking, tho: The sides/genres that the sources have taken should be explained and included in proportion to the viewpoints. You might find one source that says it "explores progressive and psychedelic" for instance, but if it's in the minority of viewpoints that largely call it "hard rock" or "heavy metal", then placing it in the infobox (even with a cited source) would be undue weight. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor of the Michael J Weller page has stated that the artist did the sleeve art not the cover art, as stated in this article.  Which is correct???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Weller
User:JCHeverly 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just looked up this album in Billboard's "New Album Releases" and it appears in the 2 January 1971 issue. The following appears above the list of releases: This monthly product list includes LP's which were issued during the past several weeks and are considered as part of the manufacturers' January release. This does not support a November 1970 release. As Billboard is a reliable source, especially on the subject of album release dates, should the article be amended? I ask due to the existence of citations of apparently reliable sources supporting the date given in the article.
I note also that the booklet accompanying the American 1999 remastered album credits the original US cartoon artwork to Michael J. Weller © 1971. Would this not have to be © 1970 if the album was released in 1970? — Labalius (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of having dates supported by references rather than dates that come out of nowhere. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The Billboard report is basically just saying they missed mentioning it in previous issues, and are mentioning it 'now' - I bought the album a couple of weeks before Xmas in '70 - so, it was definitely out. 50.111.60.168 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Will review this tomorrow --K. Peake 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Infobox looks good
"and in the United Kingdom" → "and through the same label in the United Kingdom"
Not necessary; it's why the label is stated first
"in April and May 1970." → "during April and May of 1970."
Not done; think it reads better as is
The uses of "in" are too close to each other --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Good point, fixed
Where is the part about the Spiders from Mars backed up?
I knew there was something I forgot to mention in the aftermath section. Added
Target acoustic to Acoustic music
Done
Nowhere is his previous album called folk rock
Whoops; added to music and lyrics
"his previous releases," → "his previous content,"
Think it's fine the way it is
Target B-sides to A-side and B-side
Done
"to other songs between" → "to singles between"
Done; think it was like that originally
"The album was released with" → "The Man Who Sold the World was released with"
Think it's better as is for differentiation; don't want 3/4 paras starting with the album title
If so, change the re-issue sentence to starting with the album's title --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done
"wearing a blue "fish" dress designed by" → "wearing a blue dress that was designed by"
Done
"featuring black-and-white pictures of" → "featuring a black-and-white picture of"
Done; again, original wording
"was originally better received by critics" → "received generally better reviews from music critics" with the target
Personally don't find the need to link that; changed it to "...received critically"
It is commonly done in articles mentioning music critics. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done, but not the link as I find that unnecessary
"both countries; its 1972 reissue managed" → "both countries; however, the 1972 reissue managed"
Done
"has been praised for" → "has been praised by critics for"
Done
"of its music and lyrics. Multiple critics have since considered the album to be" → "of the music and lyrics, while since being considered to be"
Changed to "music and lyrics, with many considering"
"The album has since been" → "It has since been"
Done
"will be remixed in 2020, under its original title Metropolist, for its 50th anniversary." → "will received a 50th anniversary remix in 2020, under the original title of Metropolist."
We can leave this sentence as is. The reissue is being released next week so it'll be changed to past tense anyways


### Background
"David Bowie's breakthrough single" → "Bowie's breakthrough single" with the target
Forgot to mark done on this one – zmbro (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"bringing Bowie commercial success" → "bringing him commercial success"
That's embarrassing; done
Mention the album being his second studio album for context and add release year in brackets
That's not necessary, as it mentions "Space Oddity" being July 1969. Maybe add "released later that year"?
Yeah the latter sounds fine. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done
Quote box should use speech marks and wikilink Mick Woodmansey
Done, forgot this one. These types of boxes with no quote marks are ok to use.
Target the Marquee to Marquee Club
Done
"For their performances," → "For the group's performances,"
Done
"on 20 March," → "on 20 March 1970,"
Done, but it kinda makes it redundant as a sentence before it says "February 1970"
[9] should be solely at the end of the sentence
Must have had a different page number there originally. Fixed.
"was a giant" → "with a giant"
Oops
"on 11 March," → "on 11 March 1970,"
Again kind of redundant but sure
"at the end of March," → "at the end of March 1970,"
No, straight overkill at that point
It is not advisable to say March without saying a year or "that year" when it isn't close enough. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Added 'that year'
"that it was" → "that the dismissal was"
Done
[7][4] should be put in numerical order
Done
Target rock & roll to Rock and roll
Done
Target Edwardian to Edwardian era
Already linked, just a redirect
Fix the redirect then. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done
"staircase at Haddon," → "staircase at Haddon Hall,"
Done


### Recording
"play the Moog synthesiser," → "play the Moog synthesizer,"
Nope, British spelling
Fix the target though. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirects don't always need to be fixed.
Why do you believe in fixing some, but not all of them? --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Done – zmbro (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
"Mace was a" → "At the time, Mace was a"
Done
Wikilink classical music
Done
"his contract with his manager Kenneth Pitt" → "his contract with Pitt"
Must've forgotten I mentioned him earlier
"on 21 April and" → "on 21 April 1970 and"
No, the reader is not going to forget what year it is two sentences later
You should do this unless it is one sentence later. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I guess you're right, done
"the rest of April until mid-May." → "the rest of April, until mid-May."
Comma makes it seem like it's a separate point, which it isn't
"On 4 May, the group recorded" → "On 4 May of that year, Hype recorded"
Again no, straight overkill
You have stated "the group" more recently, --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Think this response was an answer to "of that year". Changed "the group" to "the band" as by this point I believe they had stopped performing as Hype
"back to Advision on 12 May and completed on 22 May." → "back to Advision Studios on 12 May 1970 and completed 10 days later."
Only changed to "ten days later" because it reads better
Remove target on Angie but are you sure she shouldn't be referred to as Burnett like earlier on in the article?
Removed but "with his new wife Burnett" is just not right
"all music on the album," → "all music on The Man Who Sold the World,"
Done
"quoted Visconti saying" → "quoted Visconti as saying that"
Fixed
"1998 interview as saying" → "1998 interview as saying,"
Done
Target chord to Chord (music)
To me that's totally unnecessary
"like that"." → "like that."" since a full sentence is quoted
Moved quote outside but not sure where you got the second one from


### Music and lyrics
Quote box should use speech marks and target Mojo to Mojo (magazine)
Added link
"largely acoustic music of Bowie's second album." → "largely acoustic sound of Space Oddity." with the target
Partially done; already linked above
Target music critic to Music journalism
That's not necessary to me
Explained for the lead. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"describes the album as" → "described the album as"
Done
"writes that the album is" → "writes that it is"
Done
"According to Spitz, Ronson was intent on making" → "According to Marc Spitz, Ronson was intent to make" with the wikilink
Done
"darker than its predecessor." → "darker than those on Space Oddity."
It's fine as is
"they contains numerous themes" → "they contain numerous themes"
Oops
"of the decade," → "of the 1970s decade,"
Sure
"sexual possession."" → "sexual possession"."
Done
"has also been seen" → "have also been seen"
Whoops
Introduce the studio albums as Bowie's fifth and eighth, while add release years in brackets and target Ziggy Stardust to the album's page
Done
"He continues that the songs" → "He continues, saying that the songs"
Done


#### Side one
"is an 8-minute epic" → "is an eight-minute epic" per MOS:NUM
Right my bad
Target feedback to Audio feedback
Done
Remove target on "All the Madmen"
Done
"It contains a" → "The song contains a"
Done
"an atmosphere that Buckley" → "an atmosphere, which Buckley"
Done
"describes the Moog synthesiser as" → "describes the Moog synthesizer as"
No, British spelling
Remove the wikilink then. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done
"giving it a" → "noting the synthesizer gives it a"
Changed to ", noting that it gives the track"
Not necessary
"A blues-rock and" → "A blues rock and"
Done
[45][3] put in numerical order
Done
"impersonates Marc Bolan in" → "impersonates Bolan with"
Removed Marc
"different than the rest of the album," → "different from the rest of The Man Who Sold the World,"
Done
Remove wikilink on folk rock
Done
"Similar to "The Supermen", it references" → "Similarly to "The Supermen", the song references"
Done
"of Friedrich Nietzsche and has been" → "of Nietzsche, and has been"
Done


#### Side two
"specifically the 1968 My Lai Massacre." → "specifically the Mỹ Lai massacre of 1968."
Done
"of the album and points to" → "of The Man Who Sold the World and points towards"
No, getting very repetitive, the reader won't forget the name of the album at this point
You cannot just write "the album" repeatedly in different sections; if the title is not close enough, you have to re-write it. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
K done – zmbro (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"enhances this scenario." → "enhances the scenario."
Done
[54][43] put in numerical order
Done
"Like most of the tracks," → "Like the majority of the tracks,"
Done
"The lyric explores a" → "The lyrics explore a"
Done
You should mention who "You Shook Me" is by originally and add the release year in brackets; also add "Love in Vain" release year in brackets
I was originally going to but the ref doesn't give the original artist (I know it's Muddy Waters) or year so that'd technically be OR
Remove target on title track
Done
"Its lyrics are" → "The song's lyrics are"
Changed to just "The"
Add release year of the poem in brackets
Done
"The song's narrator has an" → "The narrator has an"
Done
Target chorus to Refrain
Completely unnecessary
Not really, since that is a very relevant article. --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I disagree – zmbro (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"are found on the rest of the album." → "are included on the rest of The Man Who Sold the World."
Again, readers know the name at this point
"features guiro percussion," → "features güiro percussion,"
Done
Remove target on "The Superman"
Done
"reflects the themes of Friedrich Nietzsche," → "reflects the themes of Nietzsche,"
Done
""period piece" and later" → ""period piece", and later"
Done


### Cover artwork
"he used a photograph" → "Weller used a photograph"
Done
"as an allusion to" → "to be an allusion to"
Done
"to have the line" → "to include the line"
Done, the majority of this section was not written by me so sorry about that
"According to Bowie biographer Nicholas Pegg," → "According to Pegg,"
Done, forgot I mentioned him earlier; tend to expand out of order
Full-stop should not be in the quote since it is not a full sentence; maintain consistency
Done, sorry!
"been said that his" → "been said that Bowie's"
Done
"the photo, were inspired" → "the photo were inspired"
Done
"successfully lobbied the label" → "successfully lobbied the record label"
Done
"for the record's release in" → "for the release in"
Done
"of the as-yet-unreleased" → "of the then-unreleased"
Done
"The 1971 German release presented" → "The 1971 German release's artwork presented"
Done, it's funny for the fun of it I just looked up this cover to see if it's as bad as it sounds and oh god it's horrible xD
"This image remained" → "The image remained"
Done


### Release
"in the US by Mercury Records" → "in the US by Mercury"
Done
"by Mercury," → "by the aforementioned record label"
That just adds way too much
"from his preferred title" → "from his preferred title of"
Done
"persuade the label to retitle the album Holy Holy (after" → "persuade the record label to retitle the album to Holy Holy after"
Done
Remove the brackets at the end of the sentence too
Done, btw brackets [] are not the same as parentheses ()
"frequently and its" → "frequently and the"
Done
"that it developed an" → "that The Man Who Sold the World developed an"
Done, definitely ok here
Wikilink on the album is not needed since you did that earlier; maybe refer to it as Ziggy Stardust again?
Yeah you're right, fixed
"Mercury Records released "All the Madmen" as" → "Mercury released "All the Madmen" as"
Done
""Janine" (from the previous album)" → ""Janine" from the previous album"
Change to "from Space Oddity
Target B-side to A-side and B-side
Done
"in Eastern Europe in 1973," → "in Eastern Europe during 1973,"
Done
Remove wikilink on "The Width of a Circle"
Done
Remove wikilink on "Black Country Rock"
Done
"as the B-side of" → "as the B-side to"
I've always used "B-side of"
Remove wikilink on "Holy Holy"
Done
"shortly before the album." → "shortly before the release of The Man Who Sold the World."
Done
Remove wikilink on "Space Oddity"
Done
Target "Life on Mars?" to Life on Mars (song)
Done


#### Commercial performance
"nowhere else."" → "nowhere else"."
Done
"the album peaked at" → "The Man  Who Sold the World peaked at"
Done


### Critical reception
"Upon release, The Man Who Sold the World was generally more well-received critically in" → "The Man Who Sold the World was met with generally more positive reviews from music critics in"
It's fine as is
"and commented that producer Tony Visconti's" → "and commented that Visconti's"
Done, believe that was there before expansion
"top-ten albums for" → "top 10 albums for" per MOS:NUM
Done
"In a review for AllMusic, senior editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine complimented its" → "Erlewine complimented the album's"
Done
"Erlewine viewed its music" → "He viewed its music"
Done
"adding that" → "adding that:"
Done
"Bowie's best albums"." → "Bowie's best albums.""
Done
"Q called it" → "the staff of Q called it"
Changed to "a writer for" as I'm sure it was only one person
"while Mojo wrote," → "while a Mojo columnist wrote,"
Done, although it's already linked above
"thrilling abandon again"." → "thrilling abandon again.""
Done
"Comparing it to" → "Comparing The Man Who Sold the World to"
Done
""more effective" and" → ""more effective", and"
Done


### Aftermath and legacy
"and on stage." → "and on the stage."
In this case 'stage' is a general term. Doesn't mean one stage
"and his new manager Tony Defries was" → "and Defries, his new manager, was"
Sure
"he would see the artist" → "he would see the musician"
Worded the same way in Hunky Dory
"also departed due to other personal conflicts with the artist." → "also parted ways due to other personal conflicts with Bowie."
Sure
[95][80] put in numerical order
Done
"his best work with Bowie until" → "his best work with him until Bowie's fourteenth studio album"
Fine as is
You should introduce the album --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Done – zmbro (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
"Despite the commercial flop" → "Regardless of the commercial flop"
Definitely reads better as is
Why should two sentences start with the same word? --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
That's actually a good point I didn't realize that until now. "Regardless" is just not the right word in this scenario though. Rearranged the sentence to "Although his new single "Holy Holy", recorded in autumn 1970 and released in January 1971,  was a commercial flop,..." That better? – zmbro (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is a fine sentence. --K. Peake 16:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
"on the follow-ups" → "on the follow-up albums"
Done
Add release year of Hunky Dory in brackets
Done
"He also convened with" → "Bowie also convened with"
Done
"Author David Buckley has described that record as" → "Buckley has described the album as"
Done, have no idea how "that record" came to be put there
"Erlewine cites" → "Erlewine cited"
Done
"writing "Musically, it" → "writing: "Musically, it"
Done
"1971's Hunky Dory." → "1971's Hunky Dory.""
Done, that's embarrassing
"and important albums" → "and most important albums"
Done
"John Foxx and" → "John Foxx, and"
No, British English
Wikilink glam rock
Done
"the release of this album," → "the release of The Man Who Sold the World,"
Done, that was definitely there before expansion – zmbro (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"attributed to Marc Bolan's appearance" → "attributed to Bolan's appearance"
Done
Target Nirvana to Nirvana (band)
Done
"listed it at No. 45 in his top 50 favourite albums." → "listed it at number 45 on his top 50 favourite albums list."
Done, believe it was like that before expansion
"(produced by Bowie and Ronson)" → "that was produced by Bowie and Ronson"
Changed to "which was"
Remove target on Nirvana
Done


#### Reissues
Target CD to Compact disc
Done
Target EMI to EMI Records
Done
Wikilink bonus tracks per MOS:LINK2SECT
Done
"originally issued as" → "that was originally issued as"
Done
"incorrectly list the" → "incorrectly listed the"
Done
"the album was reissued again" → "The Man Who Sold the World was reissued again" to avoid confusion with compilation album
Good point, done
Target Virgin to Virgin records
Done
"in CD, vinyl," → "on CD, vinyl," with the target
Done
"of this compilation" → "of the compilation"
Done
"under its working title" → "under its working title of"
Done
"its 50th anniversary. It will" → "the 50th anniversary. The reissue will"
Done
"original Michael J. Weller artwork as" → "original artwork by Weller as"
Done
"For this release, Tony Visconti has" → "For the release, Visconti has"
Done, think this was written by someone else


### Track listing
Add a source to verify that Bowie wrote the songs, as well as one to verify the bonus tracks
Added, sorry about that


### Personnel
Target Mooog synthesiser to Moog synthesizer
Fine as a redirect
See previous comment --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Fixed


### Charts
The tables should be split from each other properly
Fixed
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Should be fine now
UK Albums Chart → UK Albums (OCC) but only have the targets for the first time
Added OCC but Chart should be there
No it shouldn't, look at how the chart template displays this chart to understand --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Believe I fixed this and forgot to mention it. My bad – zmbro (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Target FIMI to Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana
Done
Add (Billboard) in brackets for the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart
Done


### References
Copyvio score looks poor at 45.4%; fix ref 3 to solve this
Removed a small non-important tidbit so hopefully that does it. Otherwise a direct quote is used and I'm not sure what else can be done about that.
You can reduce the amount of quoting --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Real dunce moment right there xD; should be fixed now. – zmbro (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Make sure all of these that can be are archived by using the tool
They are
Mojo should not be capitalised for ref 13 and target to Mojo (magazine)
Done
Wikilink AllMusic on ref 26
Done
WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic on refs 28 and 108
Done
Fix MOS:QWQ issues and WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic with refs 47, 52, 53, 61 and 65
Sorry force of habit
WP:OVERLINK of Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 58
Done
Target Parlophone to Parlophone Records on ref 72
It's just Parlophone
WP:OVERLINK of David Bowie on ref 76
Done
Are you sure ref 85 is a reliable source?
After I saw its use in the FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album), I saw it was. I've since used Acclaimed Music in the majority of Bowie's albums I've been expanding and recently I used it in the FA Hunky Dory
WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 90 and remove the publisher
Done
Remove the author from ref 92 and fix WP:OVERLINK of Mojo
Done
Wikilink Virgin Records on ref 113 and target EMI to EMI Records
Done
WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 114
Done
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 116 and 120
Done
WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 121
Done


#### Bibliography
Target ABC-CLIO to ABC-Clio
Done


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold and I am willing to respond to any queries you have about my suggested changes; I have noticed that you have some great written skills though! --K. Peake 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Kyle Peake Thanks for the review and your kind words. I honestly knew this wasn't ready for GA yet, due to so many basic errors you pointed out. I don't like nominating articles until I know they're fully ready and for this one, I just said what the hell. Still, thanks for reviewing, looking forward to our future interactions. – zmbro (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Zmbro Have made responds to any changes that still need implementing, good work though! --K. Peake 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Kyle Peake Done. Happy Halloween btw! :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Zmbro  Pass after a quick and thorough response from you, kudos man and stay in touch for sure; happy Halloween! --K. Peake 16:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The current version of the article says:

In August 1970, Visconti parted ways with Bowie owing to his dislike of Defries and his frustration with Bowie's lack of enthusiasm during the making of The Man Who Sold the World; it was the last time he would see the artist for three or four years. Ronson and Woodmansey also departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie.
This makes it sound as if Ronson and Woodmansey left in August 1970. They didn't: both played on several subsequent Bowie albums.
I added the phase "somewhat later", but it was reverted as "unnecessary".  Seems to me that we either need to clarify when Ronson and Woodmansey left, or simply remove references to their departure from this section - since both continued to work with Bowie for at least three albums, their departure is probably not part of the "aftermath and legacy" of this album. And my understanding is that  Bowie broke up the Spiders from Mars in a surprise announcement live on-stage in 1973, making the phrase "departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie" technically true but misleading.  i.e. Bowie fired the band, they didn't choose to leave on their own. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr swordfish Hi there. You actually don't have the full story. This section is a somewhat abridged version of the background section on Hunky Dory (which I expanded first). Bowie was preoccupied with lots of things when making TMWStW, so it was Visconti, Ronson, and Woodmansey who made most of the music on the album. Visconti became frustrated with this and left Bowie to work with T. Rex for the next four years in 1970. Ronson and Woodmansey DID in fact part ways with Bowie around the same time as Visconti, because the two felt they weren't compensated properly for their Man contributions. The two went and formed a new band called Ronno, which wasn't that successful.
Meanwhile, Bowie found a new manager, Tony Defries, released the original version of "The Prettiest Star" "Holy Holy", and formed a new band called Arnold Corns, which recorded "Moonage Daydream" and "Hang On to Yourself". That project was again a failure, and when it came time to record Hunky Dory, Bowie went back to Ronson to apologize for his prior behavior and asked him to return. Ronson, who by this point was ecstatic to come back to his entourage, gracefully accepted. Woodmansey came back as well, and Ronson found a new bassist, Trevor Bolder, to replace Visconti. This solidified the future Spiders from Mars line-up. Ronson and Bolder stayed with Bowie until Pin Ups in 1973, while Woodmansey's final record with Bowie was Aladdin Sane. Hope this clears things up. – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply filling in details of which I was unaware.  I still think the current version is a bit confusing to someone (like me) who knows that Ronson and Woodmansey played on several subsequent Bowie albums but didn't know about the breakup and reconciliation. I'd suggest the following language:
In August 1970, Visconti parted ways with Bowie owing to his dislike of Defries and his frustration with Bowie's lack of enthusiasm during the making of The Man Who Sold the World; it was the last time he would see the artist for three or four years. Ronson and Woodmansey also departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie to form a new band called Ronno (which was not successful), however both returned to record Hunky Dory.
Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Mr swordfish I actually think it's fine the way it is, because after that sentence, it goes on about what Bowie did afterwards then later on says "Bowie also convened with Ronson and Woodmansey, who returned to play on both records." (Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust). I believe I originally had the Ronno info in this section but trimmed it down so that the info was solely relevant to Bowie and TMWStW. Plus, the information should be present in the Hunky Dory article (if I remember correctly) However, if you would like me to specify I can. Also, Bowie recorded "Holy Holy" after they departed, not "The Prettiest Star" (that was before Man and after Space Oddity). – zmbro (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Now, having read if four or five times, I agree that it appears to be factually correct. As a casual reader the first time though it seemed at odds with what I knew about the disbanding of the Spiders from Mars, which happened several years after Visconti and Bowie parted ways.  I think it would be worth re-editing to eliminate this potential confusion,  but I don't have a concrete suggestion at this time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

While sources routinely give 4 November 1970 as the US release date, might some sort of mention - in the body or a footnote or something - of the idea that it actually came out later be worth considering? Not to overwrite 4 Nov as the date but at least to suggest there's some debate there. The official Bowie blog have talked a few times like here and also here about it supposedly being released the other side of New Year (the latter also suggests the UK release was a few days earlier, too). --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Might not hurt. If there's one thing I've disliked about writing Bowie is the website insistence of changing established release dates for everything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)