# Talk:Stardust (1927 song)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stardust (1927 song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I recall you being very professional during our interactions in my past reviews; this is going to be reviewed by me gladly soon! --K. Peake 20:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the review, I'm also always glad to collaborate again with another contributor that does such a diligent work!--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Are you sure the published date should be in the infobox since this is for the song's sheet music?
I think it does work in this case. According to the Infobox page, under the "published" field it explains: "The year the song was published also may be included, if discussed in the article. This usually refers to sheet music published before the rise of music recording." We are discussing here more the composition than the original Carmichael recording.--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware of that; this is acceptable I believe now. --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Change release date to October 1928
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove the word studio from the parameter of the same name, changing to just Gennett
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Jazz
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention who Hoagy Carmichael is in the opening sentence
Wikilink Jazz
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"or vocal track featuring" → "or vocal track, featuring"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge the first para with the second since it's too small
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
You have missed implementing this one. --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"at dances around" → "at local events in"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"He quit his job" → "He left the law sector" to be more specific
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"to Indiana after he learned of" → "to Indiana, after having learned of"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"He composed the song inspired by the end of one of his love affairs and" → "When composing the song, he was inspired by the end of one of his love affairs, and"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"he called it "Star Dust"." → "he decided on its title."
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"he recorded an instrumental" → "Carmichael recorded an instrumental"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not sourced in the body that the role he was hired for was specifically a composer
I added it now to the body of the article. The citation still checks.--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove lyricist introduction because who he is being in the body solely is sufficient
Well, this may be my personal opinion, but I would say that the lyrics of Stardust hold practically the same importance as the tune itself. On its early recordings, it was merely and instrumental. But since the Sinatra recording, I would say the lyrics became as relevant.--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean remove the fact that Mitchell Parish was assigned, I mean remove the introduction of him as a "lyricist" here. --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, now I get it. My bad.--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"recorded it the same year, and by 1929 it" → "recorded the song the same year, and by 1929, it"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"Isham Jones's 1930 rendition" → "Isham Jones' 1930 rendition"
I would have also written it in the exact way you propose it, but there is something in the MoS regarding the addition of an "s" there, even if not really necessary.--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure about that, as grammar supposedly sets out for only an apostrophe afterwards when someone's name ends with s? --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
See my reply regarding "opined of Jones's version", under Early Recordings.--GDuwenHoller! 00:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"pressed a double-sided "Stardust" featuring" → "pressed a double-sided version that features" with the pipe
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention that the two performers are featured "on respective sides."
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Start a new para at the "By 1940," part
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"one million copies. Glenn Miller's" → "one million copies, and Glenn Miller's"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge the fourth para with what will be the newly split one directly above
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"Ringo Starr and" → "Ringo Starr, and" but cut down on the number of artists listed in the lead to avoid a supermarket style list
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention after the several films part a couple of notable ones including the song


### Background
"Hoagy Carmichael developed a taste" → "Carmichael developed a taste"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe jazz music to Jazz
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on piano per obviousness
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"he met and befriended" → "Carmichael met and befriended"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Lowercase the Wolverines per MOS:THEMUSIC
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"he formed a band" → "the singer formed a band" per this being the start of a new para
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"appeared at fifty events" → "appeared at 50 events" per MOS:NUM
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink bachelor's degree
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"and earned a" → "and had earned a"
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"He passed the" → "Carmichael passed the"
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
If "for a law firm there" is referring to in Indiana, then change to "in the state" instead of there
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"of Red Nichols's recording" → "of Red Nichols' recording" plus either mention the original's recording or writing year
Y---GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


### Composition, first recording and addition of lyrics
Retitle to First recording, composition and addition of lyrics per the order
I'm not sure I follow. Carmichael first composed the tune, then he recorded it for the label. After some other Gennett performer enjoyed success with it, lyrics were added.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This is my bad, as I got confused with composition; thought it meant the actual musical content. --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't you mention on the img text that Indiana University is where he wrote the song?
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"inspired by the end" → "with inspiration from the end"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention how he knew at the time of whistling that he "had something very strange and different" per the source
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
[10] references him playing it to someone visiting him, rather than the other way round
I've noticed that, but I chose to ignore it since authors like Sudhalter indicated the contrary. Carmichael told the story in different ways, but Sudhalter's overlaps pretty well with the stories told by the people who knew him at the time. I suppose it is normal that it happened that way, as Carmichael was asked about it even 50 years after writing it.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe add a note? --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, so I checked again page 106 of Sudhalter's book. Sudhalter has Carmichael visiting Pyle at his family's home and finishing the song there. He cites an article written by Pyle in 1936 for Indiana Daily Student. So I went to Newspapers.com, and I got to find a mirror of the column published by some Knoxville newspaper (now in use as a citation). The interesting part is that the column itself confirms Carmichael's words. Pyle was actually visiting Carmichael, so either Sudhalter (or his copyeditors) got it the other way around. So, now I left both Sudhalter's citation and the newspaper. Sudhalter's for part of the information contained on the sentence, and the newspaper article to correct Sudhalter.--GDuwenHoller! 19:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"on the family's piano," → "with the family's piano," to be less repetitive
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"Baker, and Collegians singer Violet Deckard Gardner, remembered" → "Baker and Carmichael's Collegians singer Violet Deckard Gardner remembered"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
""Star Dust".[11] Gorrell felt" → ""Star Dust"; Gorrell felt" to avoid too short sentences, plus move [11] to being solely at the end of the sentence before [12]
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink sheet music
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"the piano backed by" → "the piano, backed by"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The word "orchestra" should not begin with capitalisation, unless the source uses that because it was consistently his orchestra
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink trombone
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink alto saxophones
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink tenor saxophone
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"Paul Brown (tuba) and Cliff Williams" → "Paul Brown (tuba), Cliff Williams" for correct list separation
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The first word of "His Pals" is capitalised here but not in the infobox; only use one stylization for consistency
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Add info to the audio sample text about what parts of the composition it showcases; rationale is fair usage though
"from the studio. He left Indiana" → "from the studio, before he left Indiana"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"decided to add lyrics to the song." → "decided on the song having lyrics added." since Mills didn't actually add them
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't you add at least a sentence actually saying what the song's lyrics are about?
As silly as it sounds, I'm not sure how to describe them rather than what was already introduced before about "lost love". I can sure find some sources that would state something along those lines.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The "lost love" part does not appear here; try to find at least some sources. --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that was an abstraction for the explanation of how Carmichael came to write the song. It is now on the body of the article with a double citation.--GDuwenHoller! 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
"he felt that its" → "he felt that the"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe chorus to Refrain
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
[20] should be solely at the end of the para due to being used for the last three sentences
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


### Early recordings
Lowercase the Chocolate Dandies per MOS:THEMUSIC
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on jazz
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"after its introduction in" → "after being introduced in"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe ballad to Sentimental ballad
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"Jones's session took place" → "Jones' session took place"
Again, that with the MoS.--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on Chicago
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"became one of Jones's" → "became one of his"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
""Stardust" the orchestras of several radio stations across the United States often played it." → ""Stardust" was often played by the orchestras of several US radio stations."
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"opined of Jones's version:" → "opined of Jones' version:"
I'm at the time unable to find the recommendation of the MoS on that, but I remember someone bringing it up with the link on another review. I'll post it here if I get to find it.--GDuwenHoller! 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I will stop pointing these instances out, unless it turns out I'm correct and the MOS is against a repeated s. --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I was able to find it. It was actually the person who copyedited this article who warned me against doing it. It is stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives. I prefer to use the form you describe, but somehow it is not really encouraged by the MoS. (see for example this DYK nomination, in which you can notice that I wrote "Rodgers'", it was accepted by the reviewer, but it was displayed on the main page as "Rodgers's").--GDuwenHoller! 00:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


### Big band era and success
"Garnet Clark and" → "Garnet Clark, and"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"Irving Mills recorded the song" → "Mills recorded the song"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Instead of one side and the other, shouldn't you write the A-side and B-side?
Truth if we were talking about a record from the 1950s and on. I was corrected on another review regarding that. The record companies were not particularly concerned about promoting one specific side of the record or the other during the early days as they did later on. They just coupled two songs and pressed the recordings. Companies like RCA did include the A or B following the catalog number of the records, but it was for internal purposes (other record companies had nothing alike). Then, they came up with the idea of marketing the A side.--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Add info about the content of the recording itself for Shaw's version
 Done--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"a new version by Tommy Dorsey." → "a new version by Dorsey."
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"and The Pied Pipers. Shaw's" → "and the Pied Pipers, while Shaw's" per MOS:THEMUSIC
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you should mention what writer of the newspaper used the quotes?
 Working I left it at the name of the publication since most of this writers do not have an article or are not widely known. I would understand it if we were discussing people like Walter Winchell (which I linked on the article), or unrelated to this article, people like Vincent Canby. The times I do include the names of writers that are not that famous tends to be as a tool to avoid being repetitive on the prose.--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I do understand what you are referring to with the part about widely recognized writers, but this only really applies to whether they are wikilinked or not. However, it reads awkwardly to attribute quotes as only being from publications when they were provided by writers themselves that are directly identified, who obviously don't represent these as a whole. You can mention the names of the publications' writers, just don't need to give any extra background. --K. Peake 07:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I want to expand on the idea. I wasn't seeing the fact that they don't have an entry on Wikipedia as the reason to ignore naming them on this article at all. But I didn't see an issue with attributing the quotes directly to the publications since (before journalism became the laughingstock that we have in our present times) the columns would go through an editor that would not allow a piece to be published if it was either inaccurate, unable to be checked back to a reliable source, or did not reflect the views of the particular publication. Basically, the words of the writer back then were the words of the newspaper. But not always! and who got away with this, often bypassing the editor? Well established, often nationally syndicated writers. The Ernie Pyles, the Walter Winchells, the Vincent Canbys, the Robert Hilburns, who could pretty much walk to another newspaper if upset. And that said newspapers could cut loose if there was backlash to any of their words with the understanding that these people transcended the publications.
But staff writers? not a chance they would get that benefit. The other issue I saw was notability: Maybe for example a person from Richmond, Virginia knows who Norman Rowe is, but to others, Norman who? I don't believe all of important newspaper columnists have a Wikipedia entry, but most American nationally syndicated writers do. And for staff writers, I thought that the name of their publication would just do. That's just my two cents that I wanted to express. If you still feel we need to add the authors, it just would take me five minutes.--GDuwenHoller! 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) --GDuwenHoller! 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
GDuwen I was not aware of this former journalistic process but now I am, there's no problem with merely writing the names of publications... apart from on modern ones like the RS citation since what you wrote obviously does not apply to this timeline. Also, you still need to merge the first and second lead paras. --K. Peake 07:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Done and done. Yup, it's a shame the publications came to what they are today (including Rolling Stone). But, after years of competing with the internet they turned to clickbaiting and who-has-the-most-outrageuos headlines type of press. What used to be reserved for tabloids. You just need to compare and archival New York Times to the shell that it's left of it.--GDuwenHoller! 15:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
"the record was for" → "the record is for"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention that it was the Tampa Bay Times staff who made these comments
The "silky trombone"?--GDuwenHoller! 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a descriptive way of mentioning the instrument and yes, as you should use terms like staff when no writer is named. --K. Peake 07:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
"the reviewer stressed his" → "they stressed his"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"wizardry" and the" → "wizardry", and the"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention the Times Dispatch reviewer by name
 Working I got the same question as above with that. If the reviewer doesn't seem to be too notable (at least not to local readers) is it worthy to mention them rather than as for the flow of the prose?--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"while it felt that" → "while he felt that"
I guess that would be related to the change above. We can clear this after you express your opinion.--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you source the V-disc release that there is an img of to be mentioned in prose too?
We most certainly can!--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"The same year Glenn Miller" → "Also in 1940, Glenn Miller"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention the names of the Downbeat and The Boston Globe reviewers if known, plus edit surrounding prose accordingly
 Working Ditto with the previous points. I'm willing to do it, but I want to have the discussion first.--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"felt the result was" → "felt the result is"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"recorded "Stardust" featuring" → "recorded a version of "Stardust" featuring"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove pipe on Billboard
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"with juke box operators" → "through juke box operators"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


### Later recordings
The versions by Jo Stafford, John Coltrane, Sarah Vaughan, George Shearing and Mel Tormé, Wynton Marsalis, Etta Jones, Michael Buble and Merle Haggard do not qualify at WP:SONGCOVER, unless you can add more info about them to establish notability
Got sources for John Coltrane. I erased the others, while I left Rod Stewart because the song is the title-track for the album.--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"Dorsey and Miller placed at seven and eight" → "Dorsey and Miller's versions placed at numbers seven and eight,"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"recorded it accompanied" → "recorded the song, accompanied"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"was on her" → "was included on her"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Again, mention the reviewers by names
 Working Same case as above.--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"of fourteen of his songs" → "of 14 of his songs" per MOS:NUM
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"Carmichael started his" → "He started his"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"for "Stardust" while" → "for "Stardust", while"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"singing it since" → "singing the song since"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove pipe on Top 100
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"Frank Sinatra's performance of the song, that" → "Sinatra's performance of the song, which" plus merge this para with the above one
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"for his 1970 debut album as a solo artist," → "for his 1970 debut solo album"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention the Gannett News Service reviewer by name
 Working--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"Top Country Albums,[63] while the album peaked on" → "Top Country Albums,[63] while reaching the summit on" with the wikilink
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"Nelson's Stardust remained on" → "Stardust remained on"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe National Public Radio to NPR
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge the last para with the above one and about notability, you need more than just a cover existing and being on an album to show it
About Stewart, it happens to be the title-track of the album. I would suggest that makes it somehow relevant.--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The para is too short though, meaning a merger is a good idea. --K. Peake 07:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
"included it on" → "included the song on"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Mention the Rolling Stone reviewer by name
 Working--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"that the reviewer noted to be" → "that he noted to be"
Related to the change above that I still want to discuss.--GDuwenHoller! 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


### Legacy
"defined it as" → "has defined it as"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"included it on its NPR 100," → "included it on their NPR 100,"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"hundred most important American musical works of the twentieth century." → "100 most important American musical works of the 20th century." per MOS:NUM
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Attribute the NPR quote to the writer
Yes! that's what I mean, Susan Stamberg is notable!
"inducted Carmichael's "Stardust" to" → "inducted "Stardust" into" since we know this is the version being written of
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge the first and second paras
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"attributed "Stardust"'s popularity" → "attributed the song's popularity"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"was inducted to" → "was inducted into"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


#### In popular culture
Remove commas around The War of the Worlds
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"appeared in films including" → "appeared in films, including"
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge the second para with the first one
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


### Charts
Shouldn't you only have the citations for the chart histories rather than the additional ones under positions?
Normally, yes. But nowadays, according to Wikipedia:Record charts, templates are supposed to be used on this tables. The templates link the artist automatically to the Billboard database and the respective chart to cite the position. The problem is that for this older recordings, when you click on the citation provided by default, it doesn't work. So I had to manually add the citations for each particular chart on the position number.--GDuwenHoller! 20:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


### References
Copyvio score looks solid at 27.0%!!
Shouldn't ref 49 be under sources?
Now ref 50, I understand what you mean. I just put it there because I did not know how you actually do that on sfn. I had no author to link, merely the litigant. Let's say I just don't use the "cite court" too often, but it seemed appropiate. Any ideas as to what can we do there?--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Try cite court in edit preview and if that is not appropriate, make usage of cite journal again. --K. Peake 07:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I just went with cite journal. The other template needs an update.--GDuwenHoller! 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Google Books on the first via
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Bloomsbury Book Shop to Bloomsbury Publishing
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group to Random House
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Courier Corporation to Dover Publications
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Simon and Schuster to Simon & Schuster
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove wikilink on Billboard Books
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink National Recording Preservation Board
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Library of Congress
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Los Angeles is misspelt as Los Anegeles
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink University of California Press
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink Warner Bros.
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Sydney Morning Herald → The Sydney Morning Herald
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Macmillan Library Reference to Gale (publisher)
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe The Rock Island Argus to The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe National Public Radio to NPR
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Time to Time (magazine)
Y--GDuwenHoller! 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; feel free to ask me any more questions if you need to! --K. Peake 09:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Alright, I'm through so far, outside of the comments that need a reply. We have that bone to pick with mentioning or not the authors (I did link Susan Stamberg, based on my reason not to add the others). We can have that discussion, and we decide what to do.--GDuwenHoller! 19:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
GDuwen I have left replies to you above, including for the disagreement about authors. --K. Peake 07:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake:Replies above. I forgot previously to add and source the "lost love" theme. Now available.--GDuwenHoller! 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
GDuwen This mostly looks better, but you still need to add actual info to the first audio sample. --K. Peake 07:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Oh, yea, working on the other points I end up overseeing that. It's there now.--GDuwenHoller! 14:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
GDuwen  Pass now, audio sample text looks decent! --K. Peake 20:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Thanks once again for thoroughly reviewing another one of my articles. I've probably been a bit of a pain in the rear end to review this time around, but we got the points down for another GA!--GDuwenHoller! 13:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I note that there are only 3 mentions of this song being in the charts, whereas there are several references in this article to other times this song was in the charts, and this chart should then be updated. It mentions only the following being in the charts:
1943 - Glenn Miller - US Billboard Hot 100 - position: 20
1957 - Billy Ward and his Dominoes - US Billboard Hot 100 - position: 12
1964 - Nino Tempo & April Stevens - US Billboard Hot 100 - position: 32
There are several other mentions in this article to other artists achieving popularity in the charts with this song. (Where the position in the charts in this page is not mentioned, the artist's discographies provide specific information on where the song or album charted):
1940 - Frank Sinatra - Hot 100 - 7;  
1953 - Artie Shaw - Ten Pop Standard Records List - 1;  
1953 - Tommy Dorsey - Ten Pop Standard Records List - 7;  
1953 - Glenn Miller - Ten Pop Standard Records - 8;  
1958 - Pat Boone's album "Stardust" charted (but not the song) - Billboard’s Best Selling LP - 2;  
1962 - Frank Sinatra - Adult Contemporary - 20;  
1978 - Willie Nelson - Billboard’s Top Country Albums + Billboard’s Top LPs & Tapes - both at No. 1;  
2004 - Rod Stewart's album "Stardust: The Great American Songbook Vol III" charted (but not the song) - Canada + US Billboard 200 - both at No. 1
I would suggest that both Pat Boone's album and Rod Stewart's album should be omitted or any suggestion that their version of the song Stardust having charted, should be clarified as neither's version of this specific song actually charted.
I'm not sure how this section should be updated nor how to note the references or find the missing references to the charts.
Tzali (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tzali: Originally, I did not include the chart information for Tommy Dorsey, Artie Shaw nor Glenn Miller since I couldn't find any reliable sources that would point to the specific position. With the information you provided, I was at least able to find some publications detailing it (Google Books keeps the Billboard archive, but there are no issues of 1940 or 1941 on it).
The list of charts includes only instances in which the song itself charted, and not albums named after it. For the same reason, only notable versions of the song are mentioned in the article (the standard for their inclusion would be that they either charted, or that there's a relevant story to their recording, or that we at least are able to add a review of it). The guidelines for articles about songs or albums are specific about avoiding "trivia" such as "X artist included it on their album X", etc.--GDuwenHoller! 20:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where the story in this article comes from, but Nat King Cole's 1957 version clearly includes the entire song. Perhaps he mentioned that it wore him out, perhaps he didn't want to do it, but somehow he ended up singing the whole thing.
Also, it might be worth mentioning that Frank Sinatra's first version with Tommy Dorsey only had the second section, while his later 1962 version only had the beginning section. I wonder if that was a little joke on his part, to have 2 incomplete versions recorded.
I think the structure of the song is quite unique, doesn't really follow any standard format. It's two distinct sections, two consecutive rounds of each. I don't think it's really clear which is the "chorus" or the "verse". The first section is almost more like an introduction--except it lasts for half the song! It's perhaps comparable in that sense to some Lennon/McCartney compositions, with discrete sections that progress sequentially through the song but don't repeat or alternate, like "Happiness is a Warm Gun" or "Band on the Run" (although far superior to either of those!).104.162.73.218 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia page with so many redundancies!  Very repetitive. 2603:7080:7B06:2A00:14E9:D9D3:FF66:5F11 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)