Talk:Let Me Sleep Beside You/GA1

GA Review

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

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)