Talk:Young Americans (song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:51, 11 January 2023 (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

Like you suggested, I will wipe out another one of these GANs! --K. Peake 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Philadelphia soul should be capitalised in the infobox
  • done
  • Shouldn't the release part be moved to the sentence after comp in the first para but the mention of the ninth album kept here?
  • Do song and album articles have different layouts they're supposed to follow? I think that might be what's going on here (did the same thing for "Ashes"). I think I've been following the album style (like it's laid out here) for all of these. I changed it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the comp and lyrics sentence to being the one after the contributions sentence
  • "It was recorded in" → "It was mostly recorded in" because some recording was done in November
  • "and made its live debut on" → "and was debuted on"
  • "It featured contributions from" → "The song featured contributions from"
  • above four done
  • I would recommend starting the second para with a mention of the reception the song received
  • That's one thing we seem to disagree heavily on. I'm just trying to keep it chronological with the article itself. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second highest part is not mentioned in the body, only that it was his second track to reach the top 40
  • "retiring it following the" → "before retiring it after the"
  • done

Overview[edit]

Music and lyrics[edit]

  • First para looks good!
  • Wikilink song structure
  • "a breakdown, and two" → "a breakdown and two"
  • "together through the use of" → "together through the usage of" to be less repetitive
  • above three done
  • Would [The song] be more appropriate on the quote box?
  • yep, done
  • "sense of possibility."" → "sense of possibility"." per MOS:QUOTE
  • done
  • President should be capitalised and mention the years he was in that position from
  • Is that really necessary for this article though? And saying 1974 immediately before saying he resigned three days prior seems like overkill/superfluous" – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe civil rights to Civil and political rights
  • Is the full-stop needed after the brackets close since a question mark is used there anyway?
  • "with former Beatle" → "with former band member"
  • above three done

Recording[edit]

  • Img looks good!
  • First para looks good!
  • "eagerly added by Bowie" I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct, coming after the "built them" part
  • how about "were constructed by Vandross with help from Clark, and eagerly added by Bowie"?? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 2009, take three," → "In September 2009, take three of the song,"
  • done

Release and promotion[edit]

  • done
  • "and was a regular" → "and the song was a regular"
  • I think it's already made clear we're talking about the song – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now the upcoming album's" → "the then-upcoming album's"
  • "was Bowie's cover of" → "was Bowie's 1974 cover of"
  • good needed clarification
  • above three done
  • "was a breakthrough in America," → "was a breakthrough in the United States," also, mention it was his second highest charting single directly
  • yep got it

Critical reception[edit]

  • "received positive reviews from" → "was met with positive reviews from"
  • done
  • Either mention the review was from a writer or the staff of Cash Box
  • like Billboard, Cash Box never made it easy to identify reviewers – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so much graffiti."" → "so much graffiti"." per MOS:QUOTE
  • "named it one of" → "named the song one of"
  • "and American soul."" → "and American soul"."
  • Wikilink NME
  • "the seventh best single of the year." → "the seventh best single of 1975."
  • "by some of the lyrics," → "by certain lyrics,"
  • "to Bowie's wife Angie." → "to David's wife Angie Bowie." per MOS:SAMESURNAME
  • above seven done

Legacy[edit]

  • done
  • Second para looks good!

Retrospective appraisal[edit]

  • Quote box looks good!
  • "to soul music, and his" → "to soul music and his"
  • done
  • "later commented that "a white" → "later commented, "A white"
  • done, removed the later
  • Why is later used for two sentences in a row?
  • see above
  • (update link) should not be in prose; remove it and make an update if you need to
  • now that's extra embarrassing. Made the adjustment
  • Remove (no order) since The Telegraph comes before any ordered rankings
  • "The former argued it" → "The former argued the song"
  • "on its list of the 1001 greatest songs to download right now!" → "on its list "The 1001 greatest songs to download right now!""
  • above three done
  • Where is the number 481 ranking sourced?
  • for some reason RS doesn't have the 2010 list online so it was really the 486 that wasn't sourced. I don't have the energy to search an hour for it so we'll just remove it (it moving up 200 places is also way more noteworthy if you ask me). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Covers and appearances in media[edit]

  • Pipe end credits to Closing credits
  • In the last sentence, [11] should be solely invoked at the end
  • both done

Personnel[edit]

  • Good

Charts[edit]

  • Why is IFOP included here?
  • removed

Notes[edit]

  • Good

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score looks great at 21.3%!!!
  • Wikilink Rolling Stone on ref 3 instead of ref 26
  • Cite NBC News as publisher instead on ref 6
  • WP:OVERLINK of Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 14
  • Ref 22 needs to be properly filled in
  • Remove pipe on Billboard for ref 29
  • Author-link Stephen Thomas Erlewine solely on ref 39
  • all done

Sources[edit]

  • done

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed! --K. Peake 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kyle Peake Should be good to go on this one unless there's any other outstanding things. Thanks for reviewing. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Pass now, no issues were left apart from the regular part of promo, though I copyedited that and a few other mistakes! --K. Peake 07:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]