# Talk:Boys Keep Swinging

Image:Bowie BoysKeepSwinging.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)

Fair use rationale has since been added to the image in question. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boys Keep Swinging/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 23:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an excellent article (and an underrated song). I only have a few notes:

I'm not sold that we need the direct quote from Visconti in the second paragraph of #Recording. The article (like many music articles) quotes pretty heavily, so for copyright/NFCC reasons it's a reasonable idea to restructure things into own-words if you can, and because that quote already needs additional context (that TMWSTW was released in 1970) it's a prime candidate for restructuring. The "over-the-top" line is worth quoting, but the rest can be rewritten as something like "played an "over-the-top" bassline he compared to that on 1970's The Man Who Sold The World".
Fixed
author Peter Doggett argues that its structure acts "like a bumper car" Is this an "argues" matter -- that is, is he directly contrasting it with other people's descriptions? That might not be the best verb for it otherwise.
Is 'contends' better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Contends" works. Vaticidalprophet 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Lodger received mixed reviews from music critics on its original release. Reviews for "Boys Keep Swinging" were also mixed. I get what this is expressing, but there may be a better way to put it. "Also" presents a bit of a juxtaposition and is usually superfluous; the fact the album as a whole and this specific song on it got mixed reviews go fairly hand-in-hand. Proof-of-concept alternative wording: ""Boys Keep Swinging" received mixed reviews, as did Lodger, the album it was on"? (Not necessarily that exactly, it's just a slightly clunky proof-of-concept, but the idea.)
""Boys Keep Swinging" received mixed reviews from music critics, as did its parent album." – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Also works. Vaticidalprophet 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Additionally" seems superfluous re. Yamada's review.
Removed
The last fully prose sentence (Meanwhile, Bowie's original recording appeared in the soundtrack for 32A (2007) while Harding's version appeared in the soundtrack for St Trinian's 2 – The Legend of Fritton's Gold (2009)) seems a bit misplaced. The paragraph has been discussing cover versions, then suddenly jumps into film appearances. The appearance in 32A might fit better in the first paragraph with the box sets. Not really sure on this, though -- it'd be easier if there were more film appearances so it could take its own paragraph, but I don't know of any more, unfortunately. (The 'meanwhile' is also probably superfluous, even if it remains all one sentence.)
I mainly included those since Pegg did but since those films don't come across as widely known or "mainstream" releases do we even need them? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point -- if you can't figure out an alt phrasing, they could be omitted. That said, it's a close call. At FAC I'd press on figuring out what to do with that line, but at GAN I don't think I'll let it hold up promotion while the best way to present it is worked out -- it's both a fairly minor point and one that has a few ambiguously-good options. Vaticidalprophet 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That should be all of it. Putting on hold. Vaticidalprophet 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet Pinging. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to promote this in its current state with present fixes. My curiosity about how to best handle the last line holds, but isn't something that should hold up a GA promotion. Vaticidalprophet 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)