Talk:Cat People (Putting Out Fire)

Cat People (Putting Out Fire) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles Rock music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image:Bowie CatPeople.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page contradicts itself: some combination of Bowie and Moroder wrote the song, but in the first body paragraph it says Bowie and in the sidebar it says Moroder/Bowie.Tdimhcs (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to the music and lyrical style as "[...] a combination that The Sisters of Mercy would commonly employ years later." However, The Sisters of Mercy were already formed, in their second incarnation, in 1981-2 when this music was created. While this music is unlikely to be derivative specifically of the Sisters of Mercy, they employed it contemporaneously to this recording and it would more logically be seen as inspired by the emerging sound. See "The Damage Done" (1980), "Body Electric" and "Alice" (both 1982) in The Sisters of Mercy discography. --Guy who can't remember his login right now --172.249.139.48 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cat People (Putting Out Fire). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QPq7dtdc?url=http://www.everyhit.com to http://www.everyhit.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cat People (Putting Out Fire). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.everyhit.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606232616/http://annacalvi.net/topic/338-giorgio-moroder-covers/ to http://annacalvi.net/topic/338-giorgio-moroder-covers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat People (Putting Out Fire)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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