# Talk:Young Americans (song)

Image:Bowie YoungAmericansSingle.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How can this song be described as a 'massive breakthrough' in the USA when it only reached #28 in the charts? Breakthrough OK, but massive?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.221.170.44 (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Young Americans (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Like you suggested, I will wipe out another one of these GANs! --K. Peake 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Philadelphia soul should be capitalised in the infobox
done
Shouldn't the release part be moved to the sentence after comp in the first para but the mention of the ninth album kept here?
Do song and album articles have different layouts they're supposed to follow? I think that might be what's going on here (did the same thing for "Ashes"). I think I've been following the album style (like it's laid out here) for all of these. I changed it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Move the comp and lyrics sentence to being the one after the contributions sentence
"It was recorded in" → "It was mostly recorded in" because some recording was done in November
"and made its live debut on" → "and was debuted on"
"It featured contributions from" → "The song featured contributions from"
above four done
I would recommend starting the second para with a mention of the reception the song received
That's one thing we seem to disagree heavily on. I'm just trying to keep it chronological with the article itself. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The second highest part is not mentioned in the body, only that it was his second track to reach the top 40
adjusted body to clarify this – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"retiring it following the" → "before retiring it after the"
done


### Overview
#### Music and lyrics
First para looks good!
Wikilink song structure
"a breakdown, and two" → "a breakdown and two"
"together through the use of" → "together through the usage of" to be less repetitive
above three done
Would [The song] be more appropriate on the quote box?
yep, done
"sense of possibility."" → "sense of possibility"." per MOS:QUOTE
done
President should be capitalised and mention the years he was in that position from
Is that really necessary for this article though? And saying 1974 immediately before saying he resigned three days prior seems like overkill/superfluous" – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pipe civil rights to Civil and political rights
Is the full-stop needed after the brackets close since a question mark is used there anyway?
"with former Beatle" → "with former band member"
above three done


#### Recording
Img looks good!
First para looks good!
"eagerly added by Bowie" I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct, coming after the "built them" part
how about "were constructed by Vandross with help from Clark, and eagerly added by Bowie"?? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"In September 2009, take three," → "In September 2009, take three of the song,"
done


### Release and promotion
Pipe the Soul Tour to Diamond Dogs Tour on the img text
done
"and was a regular" → "and the song was a regular"
I think it's already made clear we're talking about the song – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"now the upcoming album's" → "the then-upcoming album's"
"was Bowie's cover of" → "was Bowie's 1974 cover of"
good needed clarification
Pipe "Knock on Wood" to Knock on Wood (David Bowie song) per MOS:LINK2SECT
above three done
"was a breakthrough in America," → "was a breakthrough in the United States," also, mention it was his second highest charting single directly
yep got it


### Critical reception
"received positive reviews from" → "was met with positive reviews from"
done
Either mention the review was from a writer or the staff of Cash Box
like Billboard, Cash Box never made it easy to identify reviewers – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"so much graffiti."" → "so much graffiti"." per MOS:QUOTE
"named it one of" → "named the song one of"
"and American soul."" → "and American soul"."
Wikilink NME
"the seventh best single of the year." → "the seventh best single of 1975."
"by some of the lyrics," → "by certain lyrics,"
"to Bowie's wife Angie." → "to David's wife Angie Bowie." per MOS:SAMESURNAME
above seven done


### Legacy
Wikilink live album
done
Second para looks good!


#### Retrospective appraisal
Quote box looks good!
"to soul music, and his" → "to soul music and his"
done
"later commented that "a white" → "later commented, "A white"
done, removed the later
Why is later used for two sentences in a row?
see above
(update link) should not be in prose; remove it and make an update if you need to
now that's extra embarrassing. Made the adjustment
Remove (no order) since The Telegraph comes before any ordered rankings
"The former argued it" → "The former argued the song"
"on its list of the 1001 greatest songs to download right now!" → "on its list "The 1001 greatest songs to download right now!""
above three done
Where is the number 481 ranking sourced?
for some reason RS doesn't have the 2010 list online so it was really the 486 that wasn't sourced. I don't have the energy to search an hour for it so we'll just remove it (it moving up 200 places is also way more noteworthy if you ask me). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


#### Covers and appearances in media
Pipe end credits to Closing credits
In the last sentence, [11] should be solely invoked at the end
both done


### Personnel
Good


### Charts
Why is IFOP included here?
removed


### Notes
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks great at 21.3%!!!
Wikilink Rolling Stone on ref 3 instead of ref 26
Cite NBC News as publisher instead on ref 6
WP:OVERLINK of Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 14
Ref 22 needs to be properly filled in
Remove pipe on Billboard for ref 29
Author-link Stephen Thomas Erlewine solely on ref 39
all done


#### Sources
Wikilink Virgin Books
done


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed! --K. Peake 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Kyle Peake Should be good to go on this one unless there's any other outstanding things. Thanks for reviewing. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 Pass now, no issues were left apart from the regular part of promo, though I copyedited that and a few other mistakes! --K. Peake 07:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Luther-vandross-19881005.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)