Talk:Lust for Life (Iggy Pop album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLust for Life (Iggy Pop 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 25, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Iggy Pop's second studio album Lust for Life was written, recorded, and mixed in eight days?

Post-punk this CD? --88.9.13.124 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production section[edit]

This sentence is ambiguous and needs to be clarified:

"The Lust for Life sessions took place soon after the release of The Idiot and completion of a tour in support of the album in 1977, either in late April and early May or in June, according to various sources."

I take it the tour was in support of The Idiot, rather than some fund-raising tour in support of Lust for Life? This is open to possible confusion.

Does "either in late April and early May or in June" refer to the LfL sessions or the tour mentioned?

Regarding the uncertain date of the tour, the best thing is to state what we know: "in the first half of the year", and use the footnotes to state the contradiction between sources.

The PopDoc 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lust for Life (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lust for Life (Iggy Pop 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) 00:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 06:51, 1 October 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

Here comes that review you're owed! --K. Peake 06:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Are you sure May–June 1977 is properly sourced as a recording date since the body only says it started at the end of May and took 8 days?
  • I see what you mean. I'll have to verify that later tonight. I believe Trynka clarifies but I don't wanna guess. – zmbro (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Trynka just gives "June 1977" so that doesn't help one bit. Seabrook gives "May–June 1977" so I'll make that clear. – zmbro (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a lot better, well done! --K. Peake 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second solo album by" → "the second studio album by"
  • Done
  • "It was his second collaboration with" → "It was his second release worked on with" since that is what the body tells us
  • Don't like how that's worded. I think it gets the point across as is. – zmbro (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the body only mentions one previous collab after the two went on the tour so I guess this is fine. --K. Peake 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released earlier in March" → "released in March"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Again, I would say the May to June 1977 recording date is not properly sourced
  • "being co-handled by" → "being handled by"
  • Done
  • "The Passenger" does not appear to be sourced as included
  • Got confused with "Success". Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems as if the proto-punk sound is more akin to his work with the Stooges and only introduce them as a band here
  • Fixed...I think?
  • "and would remain his" → "and would remain Pop's"
  • Done
  • "energetic performance throughout the album and his greater role compared to its predecessor; it would" → "energetic performance throughout and his greater role compared to The Idiot; the former would"
  • Done

Release date issue[edit]

Alright so I've run into a strange problem. Before I started working on this article, it had a pre-listed release date of August 29, 1977. This falls in line with what AllMusic and this US release off of Discogs page gives. But, I have found both of Pop's biographers, Trynka and Ambrose, give a release date of September 7, 1977 (a Wednesday). Pegg also lists "September 1977", while this UK release from Discogs also gives September 1977. To make things weirder, Pop's own discography page gives an (unsourced) release date of September 9, 1977 (a Friday). So now, I'm not sure what to believe. I assumed this was a similar Bowie situation (where his official website provides "evidence" that every release date for the 70s was actually wrong), but now I'm not sure what to believe. What do you think we should do? – zmbro (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the release date reported by the biographers should be used since they are the most reliable of the sources listed, also Discogs and AllMusic have a higher chance of being mistaken when the release dates are further in the past. --K. Peake 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To make matters funnier Seabrook says September 9th... – zmbro (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imo a Friday makes a LOT more sense then a Wednesday so I'm gonna change it to the 9th. – zmbro (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O'Leary also says August 29th. GAAAHHHHHH – zmbro (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • Fixed
  • "on its making," → "on its creation," since this is more encyclopaedic
  • Yes. Yes it is.
  • "After the completion of The Idiot," → "After the album's completion," to be less repetitive
  • Done
  • I don't think commas are needed around RCA Records; it is not like where you are introducing an album
  • You're right, fixed
  • "became Pop's biggest commercial success" → "became the biggest commercial success involving Pop" since otherwise, it may be confusing which album you are referring to with him being mentioned
  • Done
  • "in a tour of" → "on a tour of"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "began in mid-February" → "began in mid-February 1977"
  • Done
  • "and songs that would" → "and tracks that would" to be less repetitive
  • Done
  • "frustrated Pop, who realized that" → "frustrated Pop and led to him realizing that"
  • Done

Recording[edit]

  • "returned to Berlin to" → "went to Berlin to" because there is no previous mention of them going there
  • Kyle Peake At this point him and Bowie had fully moved to Berlin, hence "Pop moved out of the apartment he was sharing with Bowie". So in this case "returned to Berlin" is appropriate. – zmbro (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, it is actually... I should have read into this more. --K. Peake 20:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coco Schwab and got his" → "Coco Schwab, relocating to his"
  • Done
  • "by Gardiner in May," → "by Gardiner in May 1977,"
  • Done
  • "were already present."" → "were already present"." per MOS:QUOTE
  • Done
  • "spent a few more weeks" → "spent a small number of weeks" to be less repetitive
  • Done
  • Maybe mention the exact date at the end of May so things are clearer?
  • Unfortunately I don't recall having that. I'll do some more investigating tonight. "The end of May" to me implies between the 25th-31st, and 8 days after any of those dates would lead into July, but again I'll look further and get back to you. – zmbro (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking the same but we need to be specific on Wiki; any updates on this situation? --K. Peake 20:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately nope. No one that I have access to that should ideally specify, doesn't. So it looks like it'll have to stay as is. – zmbro (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of brothers Hunt and Tony Sales on" → "of Hunt and Tony Sales on" since you've already introduced them as brothers
  • Done
  • "with guitarist Carlos Alomar, who Bowie brought in" → "with guitarist Carlos Alomar that was brought in by Bowie" to avoid using so many commas
  • Done (changed 'that' to 'who')
  • "Pop slept little during its making, commenting" → "Pop did not sleep much during its making, commenting:"
  • Done
  • "Pop worked frequently with" → "He worked frequently with" to avoid starting two consecutive sentences with his name
  • Done
  • Done
  • "the entire album was" → "the entirety of Lust for Life was" and if you don't know the exact starting date, possibly add that it was finished in June at the end of this sentence
  • Will come back to this. – zmbro (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music and themes[edit]

  • "more of an Iggy Pop record" → "more of a Pop record" because with the capitalization when this isn't a quote, nobody will think you mean the genre pop
  • Done
  • [24] should be solely at the end of the sentence,as there's only two others there and it's not after a piece of grammar
  • Fixed
  • "were similarly dark," → "are similarly dark," since this is comparing the themes of the two releases
  • Done
  • "both of which dealt with" → "both of which deal with"
  • Done
  • "In contrast were more upbeat" → "This is contrasted by more upbeat" but where do the sources mention upbeat? It seems to me more as if you have just believed that's what it seems like they are implying here.
  • Cited Seabrook as he takes care of that. – zmbro (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which described by" → "of which was described by"
  • Done
  • "in Carlos Alomar's words," → "in Alomar's words," plus if this quote is a full sentence, move the punctuation to being inside speech marks
  • Done
  • Done
  • "composed by guitarist Ricky Gardiner." → "composed by Gardiner." because his identity is already known
  • Done, guess I didn't proofread this section
  • "It was released as" → "The song was released as
  • Done
  • Done; it wasn't released before the album, so in this case it wasn't the lead one
  • "was a light-hearted track" → "is a light-hearted track"
  • Done
  • "on the album, was a sprawling" → "on Lust for Life, is a sprawling" since this part is talking about the final version
  • Done
  • Remove hard rock since AllMusic's sidebar is not reliable for genres
  • Sounds good
  • "apparently evoking his then-girlfriend Esther Friedmann." → "apparently evoking Friedmann." because you've already introduced her
  • Done

Artwork and release[edit]

  • "represents the album's" → "represent Lust for Life's"
  • Done
  • Work in the September release date and maybe mention the August one with a note instead?
  • Resolved
  • "Although the label had" → "Although RCA had"
  • Done
  • "received little press coverage," → "received a little amount," to be less repetitive
  • Done
  • "in the UK[43] until" → "in the United Kingdom until" moving [43] solely to the end of the sentence
  • Done
  • Mention the "Lust for Life" single release too
  • So it looks like it was only a single in '77 in certain territories but not the UK or US. It wasn't a single until its appearance in Trainspotting. So remove from the infobox? – zmbro (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes you should remove from the infobox since it was not released in any of the main territories, but still mention the single release in prose even if it is only brief. --K. Peake 20:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I unfortunately can't do that either cuz no one specifies. Only mention anyone has of a "Lust for Life" single is in the '90s. So, there's nothing I can really do about this either. – zmbro (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tour[edit]

  • Remove "his newest studio album" since you introduced "Heroes" earlier in the article
  • Done
  • "a former member of Pop's band the Stooges." → "a former member of the Stooges." because they've been introduced too
  • Done
  • "this to Pop turning age 30." → "this to him turning 30 years old."
  • Done
  • Please specify which two you mean at the start of the good friends sentence
  • Done

Critical reception[edit]

  • "received positive reviews." → "was met with positive reviews from music critics."
  • Done
  • "unchallenging and cautious."" → "unchallenging and cautious"." per MOS:QUOTE
  • Done
  • "the music itself."" → "the music itself"."
  • Done
  • "was not as" → "is not as"
  • Done
  • "considered it one" → "considered the album one" plus mention the year directly
  • Done
  • "calling them "a" → "labeling them "a" to avoid overusage of "calling"
  • Done
  • "with the record, "managed" → "with the record, he "managed"
  • Done
  • "of both worlds."" → "of both worlds"."
  • Done
  • "praised Pop's performance on the record," → "praised Pop's performance," because we already know this album is being referenced
  • Done
  • Shouldn't Trynka be before the 2020 review?
  • Yes

Aftermath and legacy[edit]

  • Img looks good!
  • "The album earned him" → "It earned him"
  • Done
  • I don't really think "nice" is an appropriate word here for an encyclopaedia; replace with something else
  • Done
  • Shouldn't the Siouxsie and the Banshees para be merged with the above one since this is only two sentences?
  • Yes
  • Add release year of "The End" in brackets
  • Done
  • "after that song's inclusion in" → "after the latter's inclusion in"
  • Done
  • You do not need to surround best-of with speech marks
  • Fixed
  • "The album was also" → "It was also"
  • Done
  • "The aggregate website" → "The aggregator website"
  • I've used aggregate on every other page and it's had no issues
  • My grammar is not too strong, so this can remain as it is lol. --K. Peake 20:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the 1970s and the" → "of the 1970s, and the"
  • Done

2020 deluxe edition[edit]

  • "of the forthcoming release of" → "of then-upcoming album"
  • Done
  • "alternate mixes and" → "alternate mixes, and"
  • Done

Track listing[edit]

  • Good

Personnel[edit]

  • Good

Charts and certifications[edit]

  • Good

Notes[edit]

  • Like I said earlier, are you going to write the AllMusic/Discogs date here instead?
  • Yep

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks strong at 21.9%!!!
  • Why does ref 18 cite p. 147 when ref 16 could be invoked which already cites that alongside 146?
  • Fixed
  • Done
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 28, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 37, plus WP:OVERLINK of Dave Thompson on the last two
  • Done x2
  • WP:OVERLINK of NME on refs 60 and 79
  • Done
  • Cite Acclaimed Music as publisher instead for ref 81
  • Done

Sources[edit]

  • Done

External links[edit]

  • Good

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed, this review took less time than I expected and good work on the article! --K. Peake 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a few queries above but other than that everything should be taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmbro I have responded to you in any relevant areas; thank you for your dedication and speed! --K. Peake 20:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmbro ✓ Pass now, good job on fixing the recording info and I agree that the second single shouldn't be mentioned when you have no reliable sources providing proper insight! --K. Peake 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Iggy Pop's second studio album Lust for Life was written, recorded, and mixed in eight days? Source: Joe Ambrose, Gimme Danger: The Story of Iggy Pop (2004). London, Omnibus Press, ISBN 978-1-84449-328-9, p. 173

Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 20:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Welcome to DYK! You don't have any DYK credits, so you do not need to provide a QPQ. It looks really good; I made one edit for grammar. The references look great, AGF on the offline source which is quoted in a quote box to contain the hook fact. No textual issues. This passes! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To T:DYK/P5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lust_for_Life_(Iggy_Pop_album)&oldid=1211256117"