# Talk:Can't Help Thinking About Me

Dave Taylor, producer of Richard Todd's Retro Countdown programme, wrote on my Talk page:

David Bowie's first single to make the chart, was "Can't Help Thinking About Me".
"Can't Help Thinking About Me" went to #32 in Melody Maker, I think. That's probably why it was #40 on Richard's excellent show. This uses an Average chart, I believe. Based on positions from Melody Maker, NME, Disc & Music Echo & Record Retailer. David Bowie's record didn't make the Record Retailer chart.
During the 60s, lots of organisations used an average, because there was no Official chart anywhere. Averages were used by EMI, Cashbox Magazine, BFBS (Worldwide) & the BBC.
If anyone has changed Chart History, it's these books & websites.
In percentage terms, this was the accuracy of 60s Music Papers:
Melody Maker 48%
NME 40%
Disc & Music Echo 6%
Record Retailer 6%
Add the lot together, as an average & you get 100%. So, all these books & websites only give you 6% of the story for the 60s & even get number one records wrong...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.133.111 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is history of David Bowie few know of. 83.87.140.201 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Can't Help Thinking About Me/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks good; I am going to start the review soon! --K. Peake 09:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
David Bowie with the Lower Third → David Bowie and the Lower Third, as this is the correct term for collabs in an infobox
It was actually credited to David Bowie WITH the Lower Third on the single so that's what it should say here – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Come to think of it, that's alright. --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK of David Bowie under songwriter(s)
Done
"it was the first single released under" → "it was the first one put out under" or something similar, to be less repetitive
"first one issued"; put out isn't that encyclopedic
I was thinking of suggesting this originally but wasn't sure how you'd feel, what a coincidence! --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The A&R representative introduction is not needed here since it being in the body is sufficient
Wikilink Marble Arch
""Can't Help Thinking About Me" concerns a boy found guilty of an act and" → "the song concerns a boy found guilty of an act that"
"The song is noted by" → "It is noted by"
"like Bowie's previous singles," → "like Bowie's previous releases,"
Remove introduction to Ralph Horton per my earlier comment
"performed the single" → "performed the song"
Remove introduction to the Buzz per above
"In May, "Can't Help Thinking About Me" was" → "Two months later, it was"
"performance of "Can't Help Thinking About Me"" → "performance of the song"
Above 10 done


### Writing and recording
Img looks good!
Add a comma after Davy Jones
"for a label, Norton convinced" → "for a label, Horton convinced"
Pipe A&R to Artists and repertoire
Above three done
Are you sure risque is an appropriate term for Wiki?
Changed to 'provocative'
"At the time," specify what time since this is a new para
It's already established it's in 1965, and we already start the first para with the timeframe, so not sure how to reword it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe at the time of the rewriting or creation? --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
"At the time of recording" – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I am totally fine with the new wording --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
"Bowie and the band conducted" → "Bowie and the Lower Third conducted"
"and the band caused" → "and them caused"
Above two done


### Composition
Shouldn't the musical info come before lyrical and if so, maybe retitle to Composition and lyrics?
I don't think there's specific guidelines on order (that I know of). I think it flows nicely as is. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Not really, but it would be better organized for the actual comp to come first and have a more representative title. --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
How about that? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Much better, well done! --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
"and decides to leave town" → "who decides to leave town"
"Richie Unterberger later stated:" → "Richie Unterberger later stated that"
"his later lyrics."" → "his later lyrics"." per MOS:QUOTE
"the lyric "My girl" → "the line "My girl"
"With the lyric," → "With the line,"
Shouldn't you write James E. Perone per the author listed for the source?
Above six done


### Release
"in the group that" → "in the band that"
"all that original"." → "all that original."" if this is a full sentence quoted, per MOS:QUOTE on those
"on 14 January," → "on 14 January 1966,"
"where they mimed to the new single" → "where they mimed to "Can't Help Thinking About Me""
"was issued in" → "was issued as a single in"
"and its failure had" → "writing its failure had"
All done


### Live performances
"Over thirty years after" → "Over 30 years after" per MOS:NUM
Mention the release year of Space Oddity
"Debuting it during" → "Debuting the song during" but is it correct to say debut here?
All done, reworded last one


### Toy version
Are you sure the studios can't be separate be a semi-colon instead?
That's how I've done it at Toy (David Bowie album) and all the other Toy tracks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is fine then, really. --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the labels be separated by using bullet points instead of a slash?
"After performing it live" → "After performing the song live"
"during the mid-1960s," → "in the mid-1960s,"
"Co-produced by" → "With co-production from" maybe, as this sentence does not mention any specific song(s)
Pipe Overdubs to Overdubbing
Remove wikilink on EMI
Above six done
"Ten years later," → "10 years later," per MOS:NUM
Since it starts the sentence I feel it's more appropriate to write it out. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Why so? --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Kyle Peake See here, here, and here. They all state you shouldn't start sentences with numbers. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Where are the labels sourced?
Fixed
I think you should use a different term from "previewed" because this is a release date; maybe "debuted" or "premiered"?
"alternate mix" → "alternative mix" per the source
Both done


### Personnel
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks too high at 57.6%; cut down the amount of quoting to fix this
How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK of Pitchfork on ref 22
WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on refs 29 and 31
The Guardian should be wikilinked on ref 30 instead of ref 32
Cite BBC News as publisher instead on ref 37
Above four done


#### Sources
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until everything is fixed and I don't mind it being worked through periodically like you've done so far! --K. Peake 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Kyle Peake Thanks for reviewing Kyle! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Zmbro Your welcome; I have made any relevant points above. --K. Peake 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Zmbro  Pass now, nice work and we managed to find mutual stances on any points with disagreements! --K. Peake 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)