- 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 SL93 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Space Oddity
... that the title and subject matter of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" was partially inspired by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey? Source: Rosenfield, Kat (23 September 2018). "David Bowie's 'Space Oddity' Was The Perfect Soundtrack Song". MTV News. Archived from the original on 4 July 2020. Retrieved 1 May 2020. Doggett, Peter (2012). p. 59. The Man Who Sold the World: David Bowie and the 1970s. New York City: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 978-0-06-202466-4.- ALT1: ... that the music video for Chris Hadfield's version of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" was the first music video recorded in space? Source: Davis, Lauren (12 May 2013). "Chris Hadfield sings "Space Oddity" in the first music video in space". Gawker Media. Archived from the original on 25 May 2013. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC).
- @Zmbro: ALT1 should say first music video recorded in space rather than first video. ––FormalDude
talk 14:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Zmbro: ALT1 should say first music video recorded in space rather than first video. ––FormalDude
- Hello Zmbro! I'm starting a review - to be upfront, it is my first in general for Wikipedia, not just at DYK, so I will endeavour to do my best. Thank you for nominating, and congrats on raising it to GA status! I will have the initial review posted shortly. Canadianerk (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- The target article itself looked good, but associated articles tagged by the hook had some issues. For the first hook, the 2001: A Space Odyssey (narrative/book) article has two orange tags, and had a lot of unsourced information. I've attempted to replace the article with a direct link to the film's article instead, but if it needs to stay as-is, there'd need to be improvements to the article. The other thing that cropped up for this hook was: the existing source you have for this hook supports that the title was inspired, but not explicitly the subject matter - I verified this via the book that was cited in the article (Doggett 2012, p. 59.), though - so the hook still works! Scared me for a minute, though. For the second hook, Chris Hadfield had a few scattered unsourced statements, which I believe I was able to resolve myself. So this is a green checkmark imo, but it felt necessary to flag this issue so it can be further assessed if needed (see comments below) - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Before passing, I'd like to request input on two factors, please! 1 - I'm inclined to agree with Ahecht that althook1 is more interesting. Primary hook could still be passible though, so I'd like your view Zmbro, on your view on how to proceed. 2 - as a new reviewer, a second opinion/review is a relevant option to consider. It could be useful both to check myself, and most importantly, to avoid rejection at a later stage/ensure everything is at standards. Thanks for your understanding, and hope this was useful. Canadianerk (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Alt1 is better. – zmbro (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- zmbro alright, I've strike'd the first hook in favour of Alt1. But for clarity, I'd like your view - are you comfortable with me passing this review, or would you like a more experienced reviewer to check? As I'm sure you know, this hook will be checked by the promoter and an admin, but a second review ahead of time could be beneficial to the articles and/or the hook, and ensure it passes those stages. Let me know please - thanks. Canadianerk (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Canadianerk, Whatever is easiest. If you'd like someone else to review go ahead. – zmbro (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Zmbro I'm approving. It's in the hands of a promoter now - with all this context, it should be handled properly. Thank you for your patience! Canadianerk (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)