Talk:I Dig Everything

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowie IDigEverything.jpg

Image:Bowie IDigEverything.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 18:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that David Bowie's "I Dig Everything" was one of his first songs to be covered by another artist? Source: Pegg, Nicholas (2016). The Complete David Bowie (Revised and Updated ed.). London: Titan Books. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-1-78565-365-0.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wallace's fruit dove

5x expanded by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

• I like the hook, and the article is a great read. Unfortunately, the expansion of the prose falls well below the fivefold threshold. The last revision before the nominator's expansion had 2,335 characters of prose according to DYKcheck; the article currently stands at 7,334 characters, or 3.141-fold expansion. If the article can either a.) be expanded further to meet 5x, or b.) pass its current GAN, and also if a QPQ can be provided, then I would gladly revisit this and move ahead with a full review. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  As soon as zim gets to my review, it will be an easy GA pass, so I wouldn't be too concerned. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 23:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, now that this article has passed GAN, the only requirement left unfulfilled is the QPQ. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Dylan620 Pardon me but what is that exactly? I'm still not that familiar with DYK... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Zmbro, it's "quid pro quo", the requirement that submitters review a submission for every one of theirs. Though if you're very new that won't be needed, it only applies after your first 5 submissions. Rusalkii (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dylan620 Done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Zim, we're good to go now! --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dylan620, the DYK review and the GAN review are separate things: while passing the GAN while this nomination was active means it automatically qualifies as new enough (and at 7334 prose characters it's long enough), you must yourself do the "within policy" checks noted above this edit window (neutrality, sourcing, copyvio/close paraphrase, etc.), and specify what you checked and the result. We've had nominations fail at DYK despite a GA pass (and the GA typically gets reassessed at that point, sometimes with a delisting to follow). Thanks for doing the necessary full check. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: My review of the article did indeed assess it to have met the DYK criteria independently of the GA review; I realize now that I should have referred to the criteria explicitly. So, for the sake of completion:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Offline/paywalled sources accepted in good faith. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Dig Everything/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 14:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Love this silly little track. I'll try to get to David Bowie as well if I have time. Tkbrett (✉) 14:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Text

• Prose and MOS is all good. I fixed small things myself rather than make you jump through the hoops, so make sure you agree with those.

References

• Copyvio is a good 9.1% (violation unlikely). Sources look good.

Images

• The Tony Hatch image is good, though it'd be nice if someone could get a better picture, at least for his sake.

• Haha right!? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Where does the image in the infobox come from? After a quick search on Discogs, I only see an image for the 2000 CD release I Dig Everything: The 1966 Pye Singles. The original single doesn't seem to have had a picture sleeve, but instead just came in a company sleeve.

• Tkbrett I honestly have no idea. The now-banned User:Shoot for the Stars uploaded it and given that user's prior history with uploading Beatles-related images that were mostly removed I'd say the same should be applied here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, there may have been an issue at one time with that user uploading fan art for picture sleeves, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I may being thinking of someone else, but in any case since we can't determine the origin, it's probably best to simply can it. It looks like there's a picture sleeve for a 1973 Spanish reissue, though I'm not sure who "the Lower Third" is. Tkbrett (✉) 17:56, 30 January 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

Great job assembling all this info on such a niche track. I've been listening to the Kinks non-stop lately and so I've been surprised to hear how similar Bowie's early writing was to Ray Davies'. Maybe not as much on this track with respect to its sound, but the lyrics are there. "Can't Help Thinking About Me" reminded me of "Tired of Waiting for You", except that the latter is a little easier to say. "Can't help thinking about me" sounds awkward to say out loud, at least to my ears. Tkbrett (✉) 15:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Now a pass. Tkbrett (✉) 17:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)