Talk:Cat People (Putting Out Fire)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite Bowie songs (not that I can choose just one). I'll get the review up in the next day or so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the sourcing, and portions of the article appear to have been lifted from the sources with minimal changes. As it stands, this article can't reach good article status without substantial reworking of the phrasing and sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm that's quite a predicament. I recall expanding most of this one years ago before I really got the hang of writing articles. There's obviously no excuse for what's been done here but I'm contemplating if it would be worth it. I currently have other projects I'd rather work on (Ziggy related) and if like you said it would need a complete reworking it would probably be best to just fail it, unfortunately. If you think it's do-able I can go for it but if you think it'd take too long I say let's just fail it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a couple reworkings like this to fix some of my own paraphrasing issues recently, and it's an involved process. A biography article about this size took me a few hours, and that was with several sources to switch between that covered the subject's entire life. This isn't to discourage you from reworking it if you choose to do so, but it can be project in its own right. I'll mark the review as unsuccessful, but hopefully we'll see this renominated sooner or later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Verifiable with no original research

Reliability:

What makes charts.org.nz a reliable source?

Spotchecks:

[1] Pegg (2016) p.57 – There are close paraphrasing issues here. It looks almost as if the entire entry was pasted straight into the Wikipedia article and then shifted around a bit. It doesn't help that this source makes up a significant amount of the article's referencing. I also notice that this source is used to support "Cafe Disco" despite making no mention of which episode the song appeared in.
[2][4] Trynka (2011) p.365–366 – I found the information, but in this copy, it was on p.303. Is it on p.365 in a different edition, or is the page number incorrect in the article?
[13] Sandford (1997) – Close paraphrasing, right down to the snappy he did not.
[16] Gerard (2017) – Checked both uses. Unable to verify its inclusion in the "Sound + Vision" collection.
[22] Buckley p.334–337 – Close paraphrasing. For example, the source says Bowie wanted to start afresh with a new producer, while the article says Bowie wanted to start fresh with a new producer.
[30] Hilburn (1982) – Good.

Broad in its coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated