Talk:Space Oddity/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi, I'm looking forward to reviewing this article! I'll post my comments and suggestions below, and once I've gone through each section, I'll give a final review. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've finished my initial review, @Zmbro, if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Once these are addressed, I can post the final pass/fail! ––FormalDude ^talk 19:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Background and writing

• engaged a new manager unclear what "engaged" means. Did they become acquainted, did he hire them?

• Changed to acquired

• Bowie's relationship with Farthingale lasted until February 1969 "relationship" is vague. What type of relationship?

• Romantic; specified and combined the two sentences regarding that

• First sentence of par 2 missing inline citation.

• Both citations at the end of sentence two verifies both

• Bowie's break-up with Farthingale deeply affected Bowie Again, "break-up" is rather vague.

• Now that it's specified as romantic is it still vague? – zmbro _(talk) 18:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Composition

Lyrics

• First two sentences of second paragraph missing inline citation.

• Doggett's thoughts are expressed across the 2nd and 3rd sentence so citing them both would be derivative. The first sentence doesn't need to be cited as it is retroactively verified by all the sources provided in the entire para

• There's an extra space at the end of the last quote in the second paragraph.

• That's weird. Fixed

Music

• First two sentences of second paragraph missing inline citation.

• The entire para is sourced by O'Leary but I see your point. Fixed.

• It represents Bowie's new interest in acoustic music since joining Feathers. Missing inline citation, also possible improper use of WIKIVOICE.

• Cites fixed; would "represented" be better? – zmbro _(talk) 18:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Recording

Early demos and first studio version

• Wikilink Stylophone.

• Done

• First two sentences of final paragraph missing inline citation.

• [27] takes care of every sentence that comes before

Album version

• Paragraph one sentences two and three missing inline citations.

• All from [30]

• Paragraph two sentence two missing inline citation.

• From [35]. Every single sentence doesn't need to be cited when one ref takes care of multiple

• This section may go into excessive detail, consider trimming.

• That better? – zmbro _(talk) 18:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Mixing

• Sentence two: change semi-colon to comma.

• Done

Release and promotion

• Remove In 2011, a rare Japanese sleeve was sold at auction for almost £16,000. as UNDUE.

• Done, sometimes I get carried away

• On realising the dark lyrics: change "on" to "upon".

• Done

Re-releases

• Looks good.

Subsequent releases

• Looks good.

Live versions

• Looks good.

Music videos

• Article has yet to be illustrated with images at this point. Highly suggest trying to find some appropriate images.

Legacy

Major Tom

• Looks good.

Retrospective appraisal

• and has frequently been listed by publications as one of his greatest songs. Missing inline citation.

• That's retroactively verified through all the lists presented afterwards.

Cover versions and appearances in media

• Looks good.

Chris Hadfield version

• Great section, very interesting. Would make a good DYK.

• Ngl many bits from this article would make good DYKs. – zmbro _(talk) 18:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Final Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a well written article that fully deserve GA status.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Professional writing.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows MOS.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All content is properly referenced.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No unreliable or even questionable sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Passes copyright check.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Very interesting and informative article that tells you a lot about the song.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The reviewer has no notes here.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Formal and neutral tone.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Editing has been consistently stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The reviewer has no notes here.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The reviewer has no notes here.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!