Talk:Let Me Sleep Beside You

Did you know nomination

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) 07:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that David Bowie's "Let Me Sleep Beside You" was his first collaboration with producer Tony Visconti? Source: Pegg, Nicholas (2016). The Complete David Bowie (Revised and Updated ed.). London: Titan Books. p. 157. ISBN 978-1-78565-365-0.
  • ALT1: ... that David Bowie's 1967 composition "Let Me Sleep Beside You" was rejected as a single due to its suggestive title? Source: Cann, Kevin (2010). Any Day Now – David Bowie: The London Years: 1947–1974. Croyden, Surrey: Adelita. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-9552017-7-6.

Converted from a redirect by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Eligible (expanded redirect), article is well cited, well-written, formatting correct, Earwig says no copyvio and qpq done. The hook is interesting. Unfortunately I will have to AGF on the DYK citation, but this user appears to have a very good track record. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Let Me Sleep Beside You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm back from my few days away, so now's the time to start a new review! --K. Peake 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good!
• The release info should come between the recording and departure sentences

• It's acceptable to have it this way (see Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) or even David Bowie (1969 album) which you reviewed). Plus, I find it flows better stating why it appeared on a compilation album first – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pipe singles to Single (music)
• ""Let Me Sleep Beside You" displays a" → "the song displays a"

• Both done

• A celli arrangement is sourced in the body, not strings

• Ope – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The track was rejected by Deram" → "The song was rejected by Deram"

• Done

• Pipe compilation to Compilation album

• That'd be WP:SEAOFBLUE though – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• "has seen release on compilations and reissues." → "has seen release on numerous albums." because it has been released on more than one of both

• Done

• "The song was also featured" → "A remixed version of the song was featured"

• "A remixed version" – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• The publications part should be the second sentence of the second para instead, also add ones included

• But why? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Done

• "entire Toy album as part" → "entire Toy album, as part"

• Done

• "The remake was positively received." add why it is praised

• "Reviewing Toy, Petridis called the remake "great",[30] a sentiment echoed by Pegg, who found it "splendid".[1]" No why presented – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Background and recording

• Img looks good!
• Add the release year of his self-titled debut album
• Pipe singles to Single (music)
• "turned it down but suggested" → "turned an offer down, but suggested"
• Remove pipe on single since this should have been done earlier in the para

• Above four done

• Use something other than for to start the second sentence of the second para, to be less repetitive

• Composing? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pipe B-side to A-side and B-side

• Done

Composition

• Retitle to Composition and lyrics

• Done

• The celli wikilink leads to a disambiguation page; fix this if it is kept, which I'm not sure of since the lead says strings?

• That's awkward – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pipe chord to Chord (music)
• "such as "Let Me Sleep Beside You" and "Be My Wife"" → "such as 'Let Me Sleep Beside You' and 'Be My Wife'"

• Both done

Release and aftermath

• Any context for the quote?
• "they requested he change" → "they requested that Bowie change"

• Done

• "The Stones, also a Decca artist," → "The Rolling Stones, also under Decca," since calling a band an artist makes no sense

• I don't feel that way but K – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pipe compilation to Compilation album

• WP:SEAOFBLUE again? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I can't see the source, so I'm asking is it correct to state BBC sessions here when only one is specified or does the source say there was multiple ones?

• Fixed

• "and argues that it" → "and arguing that it"
• "and impersonating Mick Jagger." → "and impersonating Jagger."
• "cut of the film but was" → "cut of the film, but was"
• "a more folk-inspired version of the track with" → "a more folk-inspired number with" to be less wordy
• "called it superior to Bowie's entire debut album and acknowledged its sound" → "called the song superior to Bowie's entire debut album and acknowledged the sound"

• Above five done

Toy version

• Replace hlist with bullet points per Template:Infobox song

• Sure

• "along with other tracks Bowie wrote" → "along with other tracks he wrote"
• Wikilink EMI

• Both done

Personnel

• Good

Notes

• What warrants the inclusion of note b when that album is not mentioned in the article?

• Just a fact – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

• Copyvio score looks incredible at 14.5%!!!
• Pipe Consequence of Sound to Consequence (publication) on ref 16

• Done

• Wikilink Rolling Stone on ref 20

• Done

• MOS:CAPS issues with ref 29, unless that is how Toy can be stylized

• I find that's how the website sometimes stylizes it even though I've never seen anyone else do it like that – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Good

External links

• Good

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; smooth article so far! --K. Peake 09:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Kyle. Have a busy weekend ahead so I can't get to this til Tuesday at the least just so you're aware. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Kyle Peake Queries above – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Zmbro ✓ Pass now, no problems in the areas where you asked questions and your reasoning for not implementing anything is acceptable! --K. Peake 10:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)