Talk:Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song)

Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song) 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.
Review: April 6, 2020. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

45 rpm record → 7-inch (few people know the rpm, but they are familia with the 7-inch format)

I doubt many people who bought or played these when they were popular knew or thought of them as "7-inch". 45 rpm was usually printed on the record label, so the correct speed could be selected on the turntable (the choices being 33, 45, and 78 – "7-inch" etc. was not used). However, added clarification. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

country rock → no source given and it should be on the body of the article, as well

Removed, covered by folk-rock. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

in April 1967 → in April 1967 by Atco Records

Added more helpful release date instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Written by Stephen Stills → Written by Stephen Stills and produced by the latter along with co-production by Ahmet Ertegun

Reworded. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was released as a follow-up to their hit "For What It's Worth", despite not being as commercially successful

For clarification, added the actual position instead (as below). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add the meaning of the song's lyrics, menton it peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 and critics thoughs on the track

Done (as above, although peaked at #58). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"For What It's Worth" → add release date in between brackets

Added to following sentence which mentions "release". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bluebird" became Buffalo Springfield's fourth single, backed with "Mr.Soul" → "Bluebird" became Buffalo Springfield's fourth single, with "Mr.Soul" as a B-Side.

Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears on several Buffalo Springfield anthologies, including → very bias "It also appears on several Buffalo Springfield albums, including

[I think this applies to the "Releases" section] Unsure what you mean by "very bias": "anthology" simply means a collection (i.e. Retrospective, Box set, etc.) to distinguish them from "studio" albums. However, removed designations altogether. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

although he...Young left the group soon after → although the latter...he left the group soon after

Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

anthology → bias

See above. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and recording

April 4, 1967, is the only session date that has been identified, although the song required multiple overdubs → According to various sources, "Bluebird" only took one session date to record, April 4, 1967, although the song required multiple overdubs

This would change the meaning, since the sources don't say that it was completed on this date. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try this instead, "There was only one session date that has been identified, April 4, 1967, although the song required multiple overdubs. The sentence shouldn't begun with the date, unless is "On April 5, 2020". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, used yours. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Releases and charts

Initially, it performed well on area radio, where the song reached number two on KHJ (AM) → Initially, it performed well on area radio, reaching number two on KHJ (AM)

Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

national → US

Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Buffalo Springfield box set (2001), and What's That Sound? Complete Albums Collection (2018). → sources

Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

folk-rock → wikilink

Linked earlier occurrence in "Composition" section: "creating a radio-friendly folk-rock tune". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

who were also on the bill → remove

Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other versions

Old Ways → add release date in between brackets

Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Fine

References

AllMusic and BMI are not work

I used the current Template:Cite web#Parameters guidance |website= (appears the same as work): "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)". There are conflicting views on this issue, see RfC and follow-up.—18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This a matter that should have been solved a long time ago. Furthermore, if you use website=/work= parameters it will always have the text in italics. If you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources it is not in italics. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up again at WT:ALBUMS#Should AllMusic and other non-periodical websites be italicized? I wouldn't expect a resolution anytime soon, but will keep this in mind. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Fine

Overall

You can now address the issues I raised. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've covered your points; let me know if further clarification is needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a note on "Composition and recording" and "References". That's it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed/explained. Thanks again for your review. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you have a personnel section?

All the participants and their instruments are identified in prose, so a separate section is unneeded. Also, see MOS:OVERSECTION: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]