- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2021 [1].
- Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about...the David Bowie song "Sound and Vision", a very oddly structured song that is also one of his finest. It came off the divisive Low, and surprised RCA Records by being a surprise hit in the UK (peaking at number three). Since its GA promotion back in May, I've continued expanding it, using other FAs such as New Romantics (song) as a basis. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
Images are either hosted on commons with appropriate licensing or have appropriate fair use rationale. Looks good here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Aoba47[edit]
- I am uncertain about using a quote in the lead as done in this part, Regarded as the closest to a "conventional pop song" on Low, as I am uncertain if a clearer attribution would be needed to clarify who regarded the song this way.
- It's regarded this way by his biographers. Would it be better to attribute this? The genre for this one is a little weird as I haven't been able to find someone classifying it under a definitive genre. People have classified Low as a whole as art rock, but that doesn't really suffice here. In my opinion, the song is 100% art pop, but again, I can't put that for obvious reasons. There are a few attributions for disco in the article currently but as it stands I just have "pop" in the infobox. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would attribute it as it is unclear who is regarding the song in this way and I had to go down in the article itself to see where this quote was coming from. Genre is always a sticky point for a song articles, but your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Earlier I was also able to find a source describing it as a "traditional rock song" with Krautrock and electronic elements so I added that; Also allows rock to be added to the infobox. Still very general but it helps. – zmbro (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks good to me. I want to read through the article one more time tomorrow to make sure I have not over-looked anything, but I will likely support this FAC at that point. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part, "Like its parent album, David Bowie and Tony Visconti co-produced "Sound and Vision"", I would include the album name in the prose (i.e. Low) for clarity, and I do not think the album is linked in the body of the article (although I may have missed it).
- Yeah, the same thing occurred for me – I aligned it with the text where she's introduced. I moved it up slightly; how's it look? – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks good to me. Thank you for fixing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Link RCA Records in this part, "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Record", as I believe this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article and the record company is currently not linked in the article.
- I have a clarification question about this sentence: "At the time of release, one reviewer felt that none of the tracks were "single material", while another felt "Sound and Vision" was the "obvious" choice." Do we know who either of these reviewers are, and if so, would it be beneficial to include that information in the prose?
- In this part, "and the instrumental "A New Career in a New Town" as the B-side", I would link B-side just in case some readers are unfamiliar with this concept.
- Done. I've had a habit of overlinking in the past so I guess I underlinked here, haha.
- I have been there before so I completely understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think the quote in this part, "as the "pinnacle" of the album, is necessary", and I think it can be paraphrased without losing any meaning.
- Yeah you're right. Changed.
- This is a very nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. There are two different link, 1978 Isolar II tour and 1978 Isolar II Tour, for the same tour, and I would be consistent with one approach or the other.
- I have a clarification question about this sentence: "This performance was included on Rarestonebowie (1995) and was given its first authorised release on Welcome to the Blackout (Live London '78) (2018)." I am guessing from the context of the sentence that the Rarestonebowie release was unauthorised. Is that assumption correct? Would it be possible to clarify this a little more for unfamiliar readers like myself?
- Yes that was a compilation that was issued by Bowie's former music publisher MainMan without Bowie's consultation. I'll look into clarifying this tonight (I'm sure Pegg has answers). – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I couldn't find the answer I was looking for so I reworded the sentence to fit the info I do have. Hope that helps. – zmbro (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for looking for this. I know how frustrating it can be not to find the answer you were looking for. If you ever do run across this, you can of course feel free to add this information into the article. The rewording makes sense to me and actually makes it pretty clear that Rarestonebowie was more of a publisher thing than a Bowie thing. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a comment about this sentence: "Meanwhile, Hopkin's backing vocal was echoed in the American rock band Doves' 2002 single "There Goes the Fear"." I am uncertain about the "Meanwhile" transition, and I think a better word choice can be used.
- How's 'additionally'? – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be a better word choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For the citations, I would move the NME link up to Citation 44 as that is the first NME citation.
Great work with the article. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and should hopefully not take too much time to address. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I hope you are having an enjoyable weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47 Thanks very much for the comments! Queries are above. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response. I have left responses for everything above. I still think the quote in the lead should have some sort of attribution to make it clear that this quote is coming from David Bowie biographers, ideally in a way that is not too clunky. I just find that having a quote without any attribution or context can cause unnecessary confusion for readers who may just be looking at the lead before going into the actual article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note[edit]
This has been open for more than three weeks and is showing little sign of a consensus to support gathering. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Making some comments soon. Here are some initial comments on the lead. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to ping the FAC nominator; @Zmbro:. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Realmaxxver Done. Btw you don't have to ping me every time I'm seeing the messages. – zmbro (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- "Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, continuing at Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November." − ""Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, then at the Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November.""
- " It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime; Bowie's vocals don't appear for over a minute and a half into the song." − "" It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime, while Bowie's vocals don't appear until over a minute and a half into the song.""
Writing and recording
- "Used when recording Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]" → ""Used during the recording of Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]""
- "According to biographer Chris O'Leary, the song began as a simple descending-by-fifths G major progression, which Bowie gave to the band, further suggesting melodies, a baseline and drum ideas." switch the position of the two words in "further suggesting"
Composition
- "Like the majority of the tracks on Low's first side,[12]" → ""Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12]""
- "Bowie's biographers consider "Sound and Vision" the closest to a conventional pop song on Low.[15][16]" you can combine these two sources with the ((sfnm)) template.
- I see absolutely no purpose in doing that. These pages are already used throughout and besides, there are quite a few instances of there being two back-to-back in this section alone but what makes combining them here so special? – zmbro (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Release
- "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, it shocked the label.[26] Originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]" → ""When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, the label was shocked.[26] Low was originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]""
- Changed to "the label were shocked" per Brit English. I also think the next sentence is fine the way it is. – zmbro (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, is it necessary to include that Low was his 11th studio album here? Realmaxxver (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so it doesn't appear as OR in the lead. – zmbro (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977. It featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]" → ""A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977, which featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]""
- "and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] where it signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]" → ""and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] which signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]""
- I think it's fine here as we're talking about the US specifically. Also, we don't want two sentences back-to-back using "..., which..." – zmbro (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives; it allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43]" → ""The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives, and allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43""
- Critical reception
- "In a review for Low on release, Lott described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album." → ""On release, Lott reviewed Low and described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album.""
- Live version and subsequent releases
- "Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours.[33] It was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]" → ""Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours,[33] and was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]""
Zmbro, finished my review. I Support this article for promotion. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I currently have a FAC on William Utermohlen, so I would like any potential comments from you, or anyone else. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did the GA review for this article, so I held off to let other people add comments first. With the threat of it being archived though, I will sit right down, waiting for the gift of another great zmbro article. Tkbrett (✉) 11:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "finished the backing track in a few takes." Can we get any more specific or is "a few" the term O'Leary uses?
- That's what he uses, unfortunately.
- "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when she was asked to contribute." Passive voicing, which can be fixed if we know who asked her to contribute. Do we know if it was Bowie, Visconti or Eno? Her 2011 quotation makes it sound like it was Eno, in which case we could write it as: "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when Eno asked her to contribute."
- Pegg actually doesn't specify, just saying "she was asked", but using her quote for reference we can say it was Eno so I fixed that.
- "Biographer Nicholas Pegg and author Peter Doggett make comparisons to Bowie's 1971 song "Quicksand", with the latter writing" replace "latter" with "Doggett".
- "Meanwhile, Perone finds that the song is a "hybrid of soul and pop", continuing the "lyrical and musical romanticism" of Young Americans (1975)." The reader may not know that Young Americans is a previous Bowie album unless they click the link, so be sure to introduce it.
- The song also made it to number 15 on the LyricFind U.S. chart (whatever that is) in 2016 (source). That's the only other one I could find.
- I don't even know what that is. I've not seen that mentioned on any song article nor anywhere else on this site. It seems to be more or less a lyric site, and that source shows quite a few Bowie songs "charting" in January 2016 after he died, so should we even include it? I think not. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's fine by me. I haven't been able to find anything regarding it, with no mention at WP:CHARTS. WikiProject Songs uses the word "prominent" to describe charts, and this one ain't prominent.
For other readers, note that this is not a drive-by review, as I was the GA reviewer, so I don't have much to add here. Great work again, zmbro! You've been fine tuning and improving this article a lot even since its GA review. Tkbrett (✉) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the kind words Tkbrett. All queries are fixed but I was had a concern about the last one. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed above. Happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 19:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- RCA Records later chose it as the first single from the album - this seems kinda confusing to me - we need to explain what RCA is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done (in lead and body)
- The song began as a simple G major chord progression, which Bowie gave to the backing musicians, writing and recording his vocals later on. - does "simple" have a specific meaning in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how the source words it. I'm under the assumption it means basic/not complicated. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sound and Vision" is oddly structured - according to biographers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although saying "according to" would be pretty derivative since the sentence starts with "Regarded by biographers..." – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A little confused on what you mean here. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Pegg states it directly, but it's also based on sales numbers. – zmbro (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose
- It's a process where you record new tracks and place them over previously recorded tracks. Added a link. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So it can be properly attributed. Do you think it's not needed? – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that particularly, but why do we care what an author said about it?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- simple descending-by-fifths G major - could we avoid the two links to each other here? - also, "simple"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved the "G major" link down. Other thing explained above. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Drummer Dennis Davis thought it sounded "like a Crusaders tune - and the Crusaders are? - also, do we need a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the source doesn't specify (that I know of), I believe he was referring to The Crusaders (jazz fusion group), as Davis came from an R&B and jazz background. Should I add a link? – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
- When asked by Bowie about what it did, Visconti replied, "it fucks with the fabric of time." - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. I believe it adds context as to why they chose to use it.
- How so? It doesn't do anything to the fabric of time. Couldn't we just comment that Visconti was very positive about using it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it? I think that since she actually said something about it, it's good to have a quote from her. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of jargon terms in this article that aren't explained or linked. I've mentioned a couple already but "two-note descent", "main guitar line", "chord progression". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Vilenski Reworded and clarified a few things. – zmbro (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- O'Leary finds that throughout its runtime, the song assembles itself - huh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to give a better idea. – zmbro (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A type of keyboard instrument. Clarified.
- There are just so many quotes in this article, can we summarise them instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. How's the paraphrasing look so far? – zmbro (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They offer introspection: Bowie draws the blinds, has the world shut away, and is sitting in an empty room, "waiting for the gift of sound and vision." - this isn't a sentence, and I have no idea what is trying to be said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded it to try an better describe what's actually going on. – zmbro (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like we are also using Wikipedia's voice to say what the tones and lyrics are like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's as far as the end of composition. I'd really like the quotes to be looked at before I go any further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Where is the genre designation in the infobox coming from? I see other genres mentioned by reviewers
- I've found his biographers consistently mention "pop" while Perone flat-out says "rock". The only other one I could see adding would be disco as that's sourced by two people, but other genres mentioned qualify as elements and not actual genres, which shouldn't go in the infobox. – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Explaining how this designation was arrived at - similar to what you've posted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
- Blockquotes shouldn't use quotation marks
- "Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12] "Sound and Vision" is classified by AllMusic's Dave Thompson as a "song fragment"." The attribution is a bit misleading here since the first portion is cited to someone other than Thompson - suggest reframing.
- Would removing the attribution work? Based on how I'm reading it, it seems like it would. – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Either that or reworking in some other way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed attribution. – zmbro (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FN36: website name shouldn't be in title parameter
- That's due to the chart template so I can't do anything about that.
- You can: you can change the template, or you can change whether you use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FN41: source gives a different date and formatting is incorrect
- FN48 is missing authors. Ditto FN46, check for others
- 48 lists 10 different writers; normally they'd list the writer of each blurb but they don't here so what's the solution? Nikkimaria – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can include all of them, and if desired used the display parameters to set how many are shown. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you list "Staff" as author or not - compare for example FNs 55 and 47
- FN78-79: "none" is not needed
Also, not a sourcing problem, but I noticed some issues throughout with clarity of phrasing. For example, "It nevertheless signaled Bowie's commercial downturn in the US until 1983, where it peaked at number 69" - I understand from later in the article that you mean this song peaked at 69 in the US, but here that is not clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That better? – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That example yes - suggest re-reading throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria Gave it another read through and I think it looks way better. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing coord duties to review in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for the ping, Gog...
Oddly enough, this song's never done anything for me, no matter how many times I listened -- as far as
Low's vocal tracks go, give me "Breaking Glass" any day...! Still, that's nothing to do with the article quality, which I think is largely sufficient for FA. Following a copyedit I'm fine with prose, comprehensiveness, and tone, but will hold off support until Nikki's source review is complete. On the subject of sourcing, I wish I had ready access to my copy of Carr and Murray's
Bowie: The Illustrated Record, wherein I think the authors remarked on the irony of the BBC choosing such a thematically dark song for promo purposes, but that needn't hold up promotion. Good work. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
[reply]
- Ian Rose Looks like Nikkimaria has no more queries. – zmbro (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be -- Nikki can I just confirm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No more queries on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Nikki, GTG then I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, this is a well-written and engaging article, well done.
- The song is famous for its use of sixth intervals on the lead guitar part, which run throughout the song (notes B+G, C+A and so on). Do we have a source so we can include this?
- Not that I know of. The only source I have that would say it is O'Leary and he doesn't. I'm also not a guitarist so I wouldn't know. – zmbro (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Graham Beards I'll definitely give this a watch! As a drummer myself I more typically pay attention to that xP – zmbro (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:PLUSING, which explains the problem of fused participles. I saw three examples and I fixed one. The others are: "It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime" and "with Doggett writing". Is there a more graceful way to caste these phrases? Perhaps, "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added...", and " and Doggett wrote". No dig deal since the meaning, at least to me is clear, but worth considering as an improvement.Graham Beards (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham Beards Thanks for the tips! Changed to "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added..." and "Doggett writes:" (new sentence). – zmbro (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
