Talk:Can't Help Thinking About Me/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
This looks good; I am going to start the review soon! --K. Peake 09:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
[edit]- David Bowie with the Lower Third → David Bowie and the Lower Third, as this is the correct term for collabs in an infobox
- It was actually credited to David Bowie WITH the Lower Third on the single so that's what it should say here – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, that's alright. --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:OVERLINK of David Bowie under songwriter(s)
- Done
- "it was the first single released under" → "it was the first one put out under" or something similar, to be less repetitive
- "first one issued"; put out isn't that encyclopedic
- I was thinking of suggesting this originally but wasn't sure how you'd feel, what a coincidence! --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- The A&R representative introduction is not needed here since it being in the body is sufficient
- Wikilink Marble Arch
- ""Can't Help Thinking About Me" concerns a boy found guilty of an act and" → "the song concerns a boy found guilty of an act that"
- "The song is noted by" → "It is noted by"
- "like Bowie's previous singles," → "like Bowie's previous releases,"
- Remove introduction to Ralph Horton per my earlier comment
- "performed the single" → "performed the song"
- Remove introduction to the Buzz per above
- "In May, "Can't Help Thinking About Me" was" → "Two months later, it was"
- "performance of "Can't Help Thinking About Me"" → "performance of the song"
- Above 10 done
Writing and recording
[edit]- Img looks good!
- Add a comma after Davy Jones
- "for a label, Norton convinced" → "for a label, Horton convinced"
- Pipe A&R to Artists and repertoire
- Above three done
- Are you sure risque is an appropriate term for Wiki?
- Changed to 'provocative'
- "At the time," specify what time since this is a new para
- It's already established it's in 1965, and we already start the first para with the timeframe, so not sure how to reword it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe at the time of the rewriting or creation? --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- "At the time of recording" – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am totally fine with the new wording --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Bowie and the band conducted" → "Bowie and the Lower Third conducted"
- "and the band caused" → "and them caused"
- Above two done
Composition
[edit]- Shouldn't the musical info come before lyrical and if so, maybe retitle to Composition and lyrics?
- I don't think there's specific guidelines on order (that I know of). I think it flows nicely as is. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not really, but it would be better organized for the actual comp to come first and have a more representative title. --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- How about that? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Much better, well done! --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- "and decides to leave town" → "who decides to leave town"
- "Richie Unterberger later stated:" → "Richie Unterberger later stated that"
- "his later lyrics."" → "his later lyrics"." per MOS:QUOTE
- "the lyric "My girl" → "the line "My girl"
- "With the lyric," → "With the line,"
- Shouldn't you write James E. Perone per the author listed for the source?
- Above six done
Release
[edit]- "in the group that" → "in the band that"
- "all that original"." → "all that original."" if this is a full sentence quoted, per MOS:QUOTE on those
- "on 14 January," → "on 14 January 1966,"
- "where they mimed to the new single" → "where they mimed to "Can't Help Thinking About Me""
- "was issued in" → "was issued as a single in"
- "and its failure had" → "writing its failure had"
- All done
Live performances
[edit]- "Over thirty years after" → "Over 30 years after" per MOS:NUM
- Mention the release year of Space Oddity
- "Debuting it during" → "Debuting the song during" but is it correct to say debut here?
- All done, reworded last one
Toy version
[edit]- Are you sure the studios can't be separate be a semi-colon instead?
- That's how I've done it at Toy (David Bowie album) and all the other Toy tracks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is fine then, really. --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the labels be separated by using bullet points instead of a slash?
- "After performing it live" → "After performing the song live"
- "during the mid-1960s," → "in the mid-1960s,"
- "Co-produced by" → "With co-production from" maybe, as this sentence does not mention any specific song(s)
- Pipe Overdubs to Overdubbing
- Remove wikilink on EMI
- Above six done
- "Ten years later," → "10 years later," per MOS:NUM
- Since it starts the sentence I feel it's more appropriate to write it out. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why so? --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kyle Peake See here, here, and here. They all state you shouldn't start sentences with numbers. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Where are the labels sourced?
- Fixed
- I think you should use a different term from "previewed" because this is a release date; maybe "debuted" or "premiered"?
- "alternate mix" → "alternative mix" per the source
- Both done
Personnel
[edit]- Good
References
[edit]- Copyvio score looks too high at 57.6%; cut down the amount of quoting to fix this
- How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:OVERLINK of Pitchfork on ref 22
- WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on refs 29 and 31
- The Guardian should be wikilinked on ref 30 instead of ref 32
- Cite BBC News as publisher instead on ref 37
- Above four done
Sources
[edit]- Good
Final comments and verdict
[edit]On hold until everything is fixed and I don't mind it being worked through periodically like you've done so far! --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kyle Peake Thanks for reviewing Kyle! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Zmbro Your welcome; I have made any relevant points above. --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Zmbro ✓ Pass now, nice work and we managed to find mutual stances on any points with disagreements! --K. Peake 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)